Vince and Others v Advocate General for Scotland
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Pentland |
| Judgment Date | 09 October 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] CSIH 51 |
| Date | 09 October 2019 |
| Court | Court of Session (Inner House) |
| Docket Number | No 6 |
[2019] CSIH 51
First Division
Lord Pentland
Cherry and ors v Advocate General for Scotland sub nom R (on the application of Miller) v Prime Minister [2019] UKSC 41; 2020 SC (UKSC) 1; 2019 SLT 1143; 2019 SCLR 1028; [2019] 3 WLR 589; [2019] 4 All ER 299
Administrative law — Withdrawal of United Kingdom from European Union — Obligation on Prime Minister to seek extension under Art 50(3) of Treaty on European Union (2007/C 326/01) — Whether reasonable apprehension that Prime Minister would not seek extension — Whether order should be granted ordaining Prime Minister to seek extension — European Union (Withdrawal) (No 2) Act 2019 (cap 26), sec 1(4) — Court of Session Act 1988 (cap 36), sec 45(b)
Administrative law — Withdrawal of United Kingdom from European Union — Competency — Whether order ordaining Prime Minister to seek extension under Art 50(3) of Treaty on European Union (2007/C 326/01) could be made under sec 45(b) of Court of Session Act 1988 — Whether judicial review proceedings should have been raised — European Union (Withdrawal) (No 2) Act 2019 (cap 26), sec 1(4) — Court of Session Act 1988 (cap 36), sec 45(b)
Nobile officium — Withdrawal of United Kingdom from European Union — Obligation of Prime Minister to send letter to President of European Commission under sec 1(4) of European Union (Withdrawal) (No 2) Act 2019 — Whether court should draw up and sign the letter on behalf of Prime Minister — Whether reasonable apprehension that Prime Minister would refuse to send the letter — European Union (Withdrawal) (No 2) Act 2019 (cap 26), sec 1(4)
Dale Vince OBE and others, including a member of the UK Parliament, brought a petition seeking an order under sec 45(b) of the Court of Session Act 1988 to ordain the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP, to comply with his duties under sec 1(4) of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No 2) Act 2019, and interdict. After a hearing on the petition and answers on 4 October 2019, the Lord Ordinary (Pentland) refused the petition, on 7 October 2019 ([2019] CSOH 77; 2020 SC 78). The petitioners reclaimed. The petitioners also brought a petition to the nobile officium of the Court of Session craving the court to draw up and sign the letter required to be sent by the Prime Minister under sec 1(4) of the 2019 Act, on his behalf.
The European Union (Withdrawal) (No 2) Act 2019 (cap 26) (‘the 2019 Act’), sec 1(4), provides, inter alia, “The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00 pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act requesting an extension of that period to 11.00 pm on 31 January 2020 in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union”.
The Court of Session Act 1988 (cap 36) (‘the 1988 Act’), sec 45, provides, inter alia, “The Court may, on application by summary petition– … (b) order the specific performance of any statutory duty, under such circumstances and penalties (including fine and imprisonment, where consistent with the enactment concerned) in the event of the order not being implemented, as the Court seem proper.”
The petitioners presented a petition seeking: an order under sec 45(b) of the 1988 Act to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Craig v HM Advocate
...part, have always accepted that they can be relied upon to comply with declarations: see, for example, the recent case of Vince v Advocate General for Scotland [2019] CSIH 51; 2020 SC 90, where the court accepted the Government's submission that it was unnecessary to make a coercive order......
-
Reclaiming Motion By Martin James Keatings Against The Advocate General And Another
...to preserve th e rule of law in a democratic society. She noted the absence of any allegation of unlawfulness (see Vince v Advocate General 2020 SC 90 at para [10]) and that the context was in an area of political controversy. She correctly identified that a declarator would be pointless an......
-
Keatings v Advocate General for Scotland
...13; 2019 SLT 41; 2019 SCLR 500; [2019] AC 1022; [2019] 2 WLR 1; [2019] 2 All ER 1; [2019] BTC 8 Vince v Advocate General for Scotland [2019] CSIH 51; 2020 SC 90; 2019 SLT 1306 Walton v Scottish Ministers [2012] UKSC 44; 2013 SC (UKSC) 67; 2012 SLT 1211; [2013] PTSR 51; [2013] 1 CMLR 28; [20......
-
Keatings v Advocate General for Scotland
...13; 2019 SLT 41; 2019 SCLR 500; [2019] AC 1022; [2019] 2 WLR 1; [2019] 2 All ER 1; [2019] BTC 8 Vince v Advocate General for Scotland [2019] CSIH 51; 2020 SC 90; 2019 SLT 1306 Walton v Scottish Ministers [2012] UKSC 44; 2013 SC (UKSC) 67; 2012 SLT 1211; [2013] PTSR 51; [2013] 1 CMLR 28; [20......