uk-supreme-court-Article-201701240429

The long-running legal challenge over whether Prime Minister Theresa May has the power to start the country's withdrawal from the EU has finally come to an end, with the Supreme Court ruling that the process must be subject to a parliamentary vote.

The government had appealed a landmark High Court decision that parliament must vote on the triggering of Article 50, which starts a two-year deadline for an EU member to complete its withdrawal from the political bloc.

But in an historic judgment that came more than six weeks after the four-day appeal hearing ended, the Supreme Court announced on Tuesday (24 January) that eight of the 11 Supreme Court judges had upheld the High Court ruling.

The Supreme Court also ruled that the devolved governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which joined the case at the appeal stage, do not need to be consulted on the Brexit process.

Speaking outside the courtroom, investment manager Gina Miller, one of the lead claimants in the case, said that Brexit is "the most divisive issue of a generation. But this case has been about legal process, not politics."

Mishcon de Reya, which acted for Miller, said in a statement that the case had seen challenges to the principles of rule of law and independence of the judiciary. "We are proud that today the strength and primacy of those principles has been restated by the highest judges in the land," the statement added.

The result was widely expected. One of the other lead claimant lawyers told The American Lawyer after the final day's hearing in early December that he was "confident" of victory. Edwin Coe senior partner David Greene, who acted for hairdresser Deir Dos Santos, said at the time that the High Court ruling was "robust" and the arguments in the Supreme Court were "much the same".

Miller was represented in court by David Pannick QC of Blackstone Chambers, while Dos Santos was represented by Dominic Chambers QC of Maitland Chambers.

The government was represented by UK attorney general Jeremy Wright QC and Blackstone's James Eadie QC.

Lord Chancellor Elizabeth Truss said in a statement that the government will respect the Supreme Court decision. "Our independent judiciary is the cornerstone of the rule of law and is vital to our constitution and our freedoms. While we may not always agree with judgments, it is a fundamental part of any thriving democracy that legal process is followed," she said.

The government is now expected to introduce a short, three-line bill that will allow Prime Minister Theresa May to trigger Article 50, despite the Supreme Court ruling.

The bill is understood to be extremely tightly drawn, in order to make it difficult for politicians to amend. But Phillip Souta, head of UK public policy at magic circle law firm Clifford Chance, said: "It is not that simple."

He added: "Questions will soon be asked about how much trouble for the government the Lords are capable of causing by means of amendments that may appear out of scope," he said. "While the expectations are that the unelected house would be unlikely to oppose the legislation, recent history has shown us how expectations can be upturned with regularity and gusto."

Defeat for the bill in the House of Lords could delay Brexit until mid-2020, Souta added.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said after the Supreme Court announcement that his party would seek to amend the government's bill "to build in the principles of full, tariff-free access to the single market and maintenance of workers' rights and social and environmental protections".

Labour will also push for parliament to be given a vote on the final Brexit deal, Corbyn added, while the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Tim Farron, confirmed that his party will seek to block Article 50 unless the public is given a fresh referendum at the end of the government's negotiations with the EU.

While the Supreme Court ruling marks the conclusion of a six-month legal battle, it is not the last time that Article 50 will be argued in court, with a separate legal action to determine whether Brexit can be reversed set to begin in Ireland later this week.

The lawsuit seeks a referral to the European Court of Justice to rule on whether the UK can unilaterally revoke Article 50 without the consent of the other 27 EU states.

Jolyon Maugham QC of Devereux Chambers has raised £70,000 from public donors to finance the legal action, in which he says several UK politicians will act as plaintiffs.