Lawyers React to Supreme Court Government Prorogation Ruling
The judgment is a 'remarkable assertion of judicial authority' and 'evidence of the robustness of our system', but it has left some feeling depressed.
September 24, 2019 at 07:02 AM
5 minute read
A range of the U.K.'s top lawyers have spoken out following the Supreme Court's historic ruling that the Prime Minister's decision to prorogue parliament for five weeks was unlawful.
Mishcon de Reya and Blackstone Chambers won out in the case, representing businesswoman Gina Miller. Mishcon dispute resolution partners Rob Murray and James Libson instructed Blackstone Chambers' Lord Pannick QC and Tom Hickman QC.
Pannick argued that Boris Johnson's decision to prorogue parliament was an "unlawful abuse of power".
Sir John Major, supported by Herbert Smith Freehills partner Andrew Lidbetter, also intervened in the case. Blackstone's James Eadie QC and Landmark Chambers' David Blundell were acting for the government.
Dan Tech, head of public law at CMS, called the ruling a "remarkable assertion of judicial authority", adding: "The readiness of the court to overturn such a highly political prerogative power is what makes this decision legally so notable."
Lidbetter of HSF said: "This is plainly a case of fundamental constitutional importance in relation to the relationship between parliament, the executive and the courts.
"We are pleased that the Supreme Court has found that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue parliament was unlawful, because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.
"When reaching its conclusions, the court specifically referred to the unchallenged evidence of Sir John regarding the usual time it takes to draft a Queen's Speech."
Prime Minister Boris Johnson is now expected to face requests to bring members of parliament (MPs) back into their role in parliament.
Ros Kellaway, partner and head of the competition, EU and trade group at Eversheds Sutherland, reacted in a statement: "This is an extraordinarily strong, and most importantly unanimous, judgment from the full Supreme Court. There is no wiggle room for the government here. Furthermore, the court has dealt immediately with the effect of its judgment on the unlawful prorogation, [so] parliament can start sitting immediately."
Jim Cormack QC, litigation partner at Pinsent Masons, added that by focusing on the effects of prorogation, "the Supreme Court has restricted the Prime Minister making it very difficult for him to attempt to prorogue again in the run-up to the Brexit deadline".
He went on: "In the eyes of the courts, he could very well be seen to be acting unlawfully on a second occasion by interfering with parliamentary scrutiny without a clear justification during an unprecedented and critical period for the future of the UK."
But whether the government tries to prorogue again and whether MPs agree to a recess for party conferences will depend on how much time is left for parliament to scrutinise the government's policy on Brexit, according to Andrew Hood, regulatory partner at Fieldfisher.
In any case, Charles Brasted, public law partner at Hogan Lovells, pointed out that if Mr Johnson sought to prorogue parliament again in the near future, "he would have to give cogent and lawful reasons for doing so, and it is highly unlikely that it could be of anything like the length previously intended", adding: "The law has now returned this matter firmly into the court of politics."
Mishcon de Reya's Libson was upbeat, saying: "We are glad that the court recognised the threat to the rule of law caused by a prorogation based on misleading advice given to the Queen.
"This second success for our client Gina Miller in the Supreme Court is a testament to her resolve to take whatever steps are required to ensure executive overreach does not become a feature of our democracy.
"This case shows that our courts can be relied on to hold the executive to account when necessary and is evidence of the robustness of our system of separations of powers."
But not everyone was happy about the ruling. One Magic Circle firm corporate partner said: "My first reaction was depression. It feels to me that we're going down the same route as the U.S., with the courts getting involved in politics. No matter your views on the topic, it is a worrying trend.
"I'm sure there will be a massive crowd calling for him to resign and it puts the government in an extremely difficult position. Does he now command confidence of her Majesty if the courts ruled this way?
"I've had more discussions in the last few weeks about Brexit than in the last three years. It's absolutely front and centre now. Previously there were too many moving parts to predict. There are questions still over what this means for dealflow, and which regulators are going to be able to approve things."
Other partners pointed out the probable effect on the Brexit timeline, with Sally Shorthose, an IP partner at Bird & Bird, asking: "Where does that leave Brexit? With parliament taking a consistently anti-no-deal Brexit stance, an October 31 exit no seems less likely unless the government can pull a rabbit out of a hat in the form of an agreement with the EU that will be acceptable to a majority of parliament."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNew Frontiers: Gaillard Banifatemi Shelbaya Launches in Cairo and Abu Dhabi
4 minute readTravers Gives Holiday Bonus, Ropes & Gray Reduces Time Off Allowance
1 minute readJapan’s Mori Hamada Joins Funder LCM for $150M Credit Suisse Bonds Claim
Trending Stories
- 1Contract Software Unicorn Ironclad Hires Former Pinterest Lawyer as GC
- 2European, US Litigation Funding Experts Look for Commonalities at NYU Event
- 3UPS Agrees to $45M Settlement With SEC Over Valuation Claim
- 4For Midsize Law Firms, Curbing Boys-Club Culture Starts with Diversity at the Top
- 5Southern California Law Firms Boast Industry-Leading Revenue, Demand Through Q3
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250