VINCE, (1) DALE VINCE OBE; (2) JOLYON MAUGHAM QC; AND (3) JOANNA CHERRY QC MP AGAINST THE RIGHT HONOURABLE BORIS JOHNSTON AND THE LORD KEEN OF ELIE [2019] ScotCS CSOH_77 (07 October 2019)

VINCE, (1) DALE VINCE OBE; (2) JOLYON MAUGHAM QC; AND (3) JOANNA CHERRY QC MP AGAINST THE RIGHT HONOURABLE BORIS JOHNSTON AND THE LORD KEEN OF ELIE [2019] ScotCS CSOH_77 (07 October 2019)

The court refused to grant orders for specific performance or interdict because the Prime Minister and government provided unequivocal assurances in pleadings and oral submissions that they would comply with all statutory duties under the European Union (Withdrawal) (No 2) Act 2019, and there was no cogent evidence of imminent breach or necessity for coercive orders.

Citation
[2019] ScotCS CSOH_77
Parties
Petitioner: Dale Vince OBE; Petitioner: Jolyon Maugham QC; Petitioner: Joanna Cherry QC MP; Respondent: The Right Honourable Boris Johnson; Respondent: The Lord Keen of Elie (Advocate General for Scotland)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
07 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Summary Petition for Specific Performance and Interdict / Final Judgment
Outcome
petition refused
Legal Topics
Specific Performance of Statutory Duty, Interdict, European Union (withdrawal) (no 2) Act 2019, Article 50 Extension, Ministerial Compliance, Parliamentary Privilege
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Statutory Interpretation Specific Performance of Statutory Duty Interdict European Union (withdrawal) (no 2) Act 2019 Article 50 Extension Ministerial Compliance +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dale Vince OBE

Petitioner

Jolyon Maugham QC

Petitioner

Joanna Cherry QC MP

Petitioner

The Right Honourable Boris Johnson

Respondent

The Lord Keen of Elie (Advocate General for Scotland)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Summary Petition for Specific Performance and Interdict / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Prime Minister is liable to specific performance and interdict to ensure compliance with statutory duties under the European Union (Withdrawal) (No 2) Act 2019
  2. 2 Whether the petition is competent and not premature
  3. 3 Whether the terms of the orders sought are sufficiently precise

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to grant orders for specific performance or interdict because the Prime Minister and government provided unequivocal assurances in pleadings and oral submissions that they would comply with all statutory duties under the European Union (Withdrawal) (No 2) Act 2019, and there was no cogent evidence of imminent breach or necessity for coercive orders.

Court Disposition

petition refused