For the last three months, as lead claimant versus the Prime Minister, I have been living and breathing the UK in EU legal challenge. I have learnt some new terminology and spent hours reading documents which might as well have been written in Swahili. Mostly, I been doing a lot of waiting, and then some more. The premise of our case against the Prime Minister is this – we are asking the High Court to find on two issues that could fundamentally alter the Brexit process:
- To declare the Referendum result invalid due to the Leave campaign’s proven disregard for spending rules.
- To subsequently find that the basis for Theresa May’s decision to trigger Article 50 is unreliable because of this wrongdoing. To argue that the referendum produced a small majority in favour of leaving is an irrational basis for such a momentous and far-reaching decision.
The Government has responded to our challenge. Its arguments contend that our claim was out of time, having not been submitted within a set timescale following either the referendum itself, or the triggering of Article 50.
We argue that we are within time as the Electoral Commission’s findings that Vote Leave broke the law have only recently been published.
All legal arguments/documents from both sides are available on our website:
Our challenge hit a stumbling block when the High Court refused permission for a substantive hearing. However, the swift action of our legal team meant a “Notice of Renewal” was submitted within 7 days and an oral permission hearing was secured.
Read full article in Impakter