The “Great Repeal Bill” will lay the legislative foundations for the extensive process of legal re-wiring necessitated by Brexit. In its White Paper published in March 2017, the Government set out its plans for the Bill in broad terms — but it is clear that much thinking remains to be done.
The “Black Spider Memos” case resulted in the publication of some rather pedestrian correspondence between Prince Charles and Government Ministers. But the Supreme Court’s judgment raises some fascinating constitutional issues
One of the first posts I wrote on this blog concerned the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v First-tier Tribunal  UKSC 19. At the heart of the case was the distinction between questions of law and fact, and its implications for judicial oversight of tribunals. The distinction is important because if an issue that
The Daily Mail called the judges who decided the Miller Article 50 case “enemies of the people”. What, asked the House of Lords Constitution Committee, did the Lord Chief Justice make of the Lord Chancellor’s lacklustre response to such media criticism of the judiciary?
The House of Lords Constitution Committee recently reported on the constitutional issues that are likely to be raised by the “Great Repeal Bill”. This post, written by Mark Elliott and Stephen Tierney, examines some of the key issues addressed by the Committee in its report.
The Admin Law Blog is a new multi-author blog concerning administrative law in the common law world. I am pleased, at the request of the editors, to cross-post the following piece, in which they announce the launch of their site and set out their vision for it.
The House of Lords Constitution Committee has published a report on the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill. The Bill, which is presently being considered by the House of Lords, was introduced into Parliament in the wake of the Supreme Court’s judgment in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union 
In Oakley v South Cambridgeshire District Council  EWCA Civ 71, a Court of Appeal with strong public law credentials — consisting of Elias, Patten and Sales LJJ — addressed the scope of the common law duty to give reasons. In this area, the orthodox position has long been understood to consist in the principle
Several eminent lawyers argue that legislation authorising the triggering of Article 50 is insufficient to authorise the conclusion of the Brexit process. But it is far from clear that their analysis is compatible with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Miller case.
Ouster clauses raise difficult questions about the relationship between the constitutional principles of the rule of law and the sovereignty of Parliament — as the disagreement between the two judges in this case demonstrates