header-logo header-logo

04 July 2016
Issue: 7706 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , EU
printer mail-detail

Lawyers act to stop Brexit

An elite team of lawyers has been hired to stop the UK government from triggering the Article 50 procedure for Brexit without an Act of Parliament.

Mishcon de Reya, acting for a group of unnamed clients, has retained David Pannick QC and Tom Hickman, of Blackstone Chambers, along with Rhodri Thompson QC, of Matrix, and Anneli Howard, of Monckton Chambers.

The firm said notice to withdraw from the EU via Article 50 would be unlawful and open to legal challenge without an Act of Parliament.

Kasra Nouroozi, partner at Mishcon, said: “The result of the Referendum is not in doubt, but we need a process that follows UK law to enact it. The outcome of the Referendum itself is not legally binding and for the current or future Prime Minister to invoke Article 50 without the approval of Parliament is unlawful.

“Article 50 simply cannot be invoked without a full debate and vote in Parliament.”

Writing in NLJ this week, Geoffrey Bindman QC agrees that an Act of Parliament is required to invoke Article 50. He says: “Sovereignty after centuries of painful struggle has come to reside in Parliament, not in a single popular yes or no vote.

“It is the responsibility of the members of Parliament to weigh up the evidence and reach an informed and measured decision. There is ample opportunity for them to do so. The referendum result is a factor they are well qualified to take into account, together with other vital factors: the quality of the information and arguments put before the public during the referendum campaign and relevant events following the result. Parliament should be given the opportunity to decide whether the Article 50 process should be initiated or not.”

Issue: 7706 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , EU
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll