header-logo header-logo

15 November 2017
Issue: 7770 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-detail

MPs debate Brexit

The government was facing difficulties this week in its efforts to fix the date of Brexit, as MPs began an eight-day debate on the EU Withdrawal Bill.

Conservative rebels included former attorney general Dominic Grieve, who called the amendment to fix the time of departure to 11pm on 29 March 2019 ‘so very strange, because it seems to me to fetter the government, to add nothing to the strength of the government’s negotiating position, and in fact potentially to create a very great problem that could be brought back to visit on us at a later stage.’

Former Justice minister Jonathan Djanogly warned he could ‘only see downsides’ to a fixed date. Ken Clarke MP called the amendment ‘utterly foolish’ since it closed down the possibility of any extension to the talks. However, Frank Field MP argued that setting a date ensured the UK rather than the EU sets the date for Brexit.

More than 470 amendments have been tabled. By the end of day one of the debate, the government had won the first five. These included an SNP amendment that the courts post-Brexit should pay due regard to relevant European Court of Justice decisions when interpreting retained EU law. They also included a Plaid Cymru amendment to give Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland a veto over Brexit, and a Labour amendment on how a transitional period would work.

Meanwhile, Justice minister Dominic Raab has confirmed that the government will table an amendment before report stage requiring ministers presenting any Brexit-related primary or secondary legislation to first make a statement on whether and how it is consistent with the Equalities Act.

Issue: 7770 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
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