header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
18 September 2019 / Michael Zander KC
Categories: Features , Brexit , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Prorogation 2019: the government’s case

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
Michael Zander QC on the government’s argument that proroguing Parliament was lawful

The government argues that the Inner House of the Court of Session was wrong in holding ([2019] CSIH 49) that the prorogation of Parliament was unlawful and that the Divisional Court was correct in holding ([2019] EWHC 2381 (QB), [2019] All ER (D) 24 (Sep)) that it was lawful. The government’s oral argument is being divided between Lord Keen QC, the Advocate General for Scotland, and Sir James Eadie QC for the Attorney General. However, they presented a joint written case.

The government’s written case advances several different propositions.

Not justiciable

The authorities established that the exercise of some powers, both statutory and prerogative, were non-justiciable. Whether the exercise of a power was reviewable by the courts depended on its subject matter (‘the paradigmatic examples are decisions of high policy in defence and foreign affairs and domestic politics’ (para 56)). The reason in some contexts was the inability of the courts ‘to apply judicial or manageable standards

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
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
Read All
NLJ this week: Tightening the screws on JCT terminations
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
NLJ this week: Old rules, fresh warnings in employment law
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
NLJ this week: The rise of the ‘ChatGPT client’ rattles the profession
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap
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’
NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads
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
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll