On 13 and 17 October 2016, the High Court will be asked to decide whether a UK government minister can decide to give the UK’s (so called) article 50 notice to quit the European Union, without being authorised to make the decision and/or give that notice by an Act of Parliament.
Until recently, the parties to that litigation seem to have been required to keep at least some of their arguments, and some or all the Court papers, confidential. But that is no longer the case. On 27th September 2016, Mr Justice Cranston made an Order “For the avoidance of doubt“, which makes it clear that “the parties are not prohibited from publishing (1) the Defendant’s or their own Detailed Grounds [or] (2) their own skeleton arguments“, even if the documents have to be partially redacted to protect parties identities or addresses.
Since then, the solicitors acting for the second group of “interested parties” in that litigation, have published:
-
The Second Group of Interested Parties’ Application to Clarify or Vary paragraph 13 of the 26th July 2016 Order – i.e. the application for the Order that was since made by Cranston J, referred to above;
-
The Skeleton Argument on behalf of the Second Group of Interested Parties, which explains why they say that only Parliament has the power to decide to give the article 50 notice; and
-
The Detailed Grounds of Resistance of the Secretary of State for Existing the EU, which explains why a minister has the power to make this decision, and why the underlying issues are judicable.
We’ll publish a post tomorrow, which summarises the arguments and offers comments on them. More to follow…
[View source.]
