header-logo header-logo

01 February 2017
Issue: 7732 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

MPs debate the Brexit Bill

The Art 50 decision is an example of the rule of law in action, lawyers have said.

The high-profile Supreme Court case, decided by all 11 Justices, means MPs and Peers will get a vote on whether to trigger the legal process for the UK’s exit from the EU. A European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill has been tabled. MPs debated the Bill this week, and it will move to the Lords next week.

Robert Bourns, President of the Law Society, said: “We welcome this live example of the rule of law in action—after a ruling by our independent judiciary, we will now see legislation scrutinised by our elected Parliament, which will then give clear lawful authority to the UK government.

“We will closely follow the scrutiny by Parliament of this Bill, and continue our work engaging with MPs and peers on all sides and with government, to ensure that the eventual terms of our exit from the EU best protect our strong and vibrant legal services sector and the rights of all our citizens.”

Writing for NLJ this week, consultant editor David Greene, one of the claimant lawyers acting in last week’s successful Art 50 challenge against the government, said: “[The Bill] does what it says on the tin; giving authority to Theresa May to serve the Art 50 notice. If the two main parties had their way the Bill will be passed unanimously.  Dissenting members will, however, be of significance but not ultimately consequential. In the two day debate however there will be many amendments proposed and rejected. The amendments however might start to plot out the lay of the land from here.

“Remainers place their hopes in the House of Lords but they are highly unlikely to vote down the Bill. That could be quite a short suicide note with an angry Commons thereafter seeking to limit the powers of the Lords further.”

The government is planning to publish its Brexit white paper on Thursday 2 February.

Issue: 7732 / Categories: Legal News
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