Skip to main content

Article 50 'Brexit' Appeal

R (on the application of Miller and Dos Santos) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and associated references

24 January 2017 | Judgment details

The Supreme Court gave its judgment in the appeal above (and related References) on 24 January 2017. You can download the decision here:


5 to 8 December 2016 | Courtroom 1

On this page we will publish a range of information and updates on this case to help you follow the proceedings.

Case summaries with a brief explanation of the issues at stake in the case can be found here for the respective appeals and references, which were heard together between 5 to 8 December:

See information on our public access arrangements page. Due to limited space in the main courtroom, you are strongly advised to watch online using one of the various live web streams (see below) rather than travel to the Court and risk the disappointment of not getting a seat in court.

Please go to our Updates on interveners page for news on those formally granted permission to participate.

Please note a Court Order is in place regarding the confidentiality of some details relating to the parties.

Timetable

Monday 5 December
1100 to 1300 and
1400 to 1630
Appellant Jeremy Wright QC (HM Attorney General)

James Eadie QC

Lord Keen QC (Advocate General for Scotland)
Tuesday 6 December
1015 to 1300 Appellant (continued) James Eadie QC

Lord Keen QC (Advocate General for Scotland)
1400 to 1445 Attorney General NI John F Larkin QC (Attorney General for Northern Ireland)
1445 to 1630 Respondent (Miller) Lord Pannick QC
Wednesday 7 December
1030 to 1200 Respondent (Miller) (continued) Lord Pannick QC
1200 to 1300 and
1400 to 1430
Respondent (Dos Santos) Dominic Chambers QC
1430 to 1515 Applicants (Agnew and McCord) David A Scoffield QC

Ronan Lavery QC
1515 to 1600 The Lord Advocate W James Wolffe QC (The Lord Advocate)
Thursday 8 December
1015 to 1045 The Lord Advocate (continued) W James Wolffe QC (The Lord Advocate)
1045 to 1200 Welsh Government Richard Gordon QC
1200 to 1245 Interested Parties (Graham Pigney and others) Helen Mountfield QC
1245 to 1300 Interested Parties (AB, KK, PR and children) Manjit Gill QC
1400 to 1430 George Birnie and others Patrick Green QC
1430 to 1600 Appellant (reply) James Eadie QC

Written arguments (or 'cases') of the parties and interveners

Here we link to the parties' written arguments, where available online.

Appellant

Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union

Supplementary: Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (devolution issues)

Respondents

The Queen on the application of

  1. Gina Miller
  2. Deir Tozetti Dos Santos

Interested Parties

  1. Graham Pigney and others
  2. AB, KK, PR and children

Interveners

  1. George Birnie and others
  2. The Lord Advocate (Scottish Government)
  3. The Counsel General for Wales (Welsh Government)
  4. The Independent Workers Union of Great Britain
  5. Lawyers for Britain Limited

Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland - In the matter of an application by Agnew and others for Judicial Review

Applicants

  1. Stephen Agnew, Colum Eastwood, David Ford, John O'Dowd, Dessie Donnelly, Dawn Purvis, Monica Wilson, The Committee on the Administration of Justice, The Human Rights Consortium

Respondents

  1. Her Majesty's Government
  2. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
  3. The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union

Notice Party

  1. Attorney General for Northern Ireland

Reference by the Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) - In the matter of an application by Raymond McCord for Judicial Review

Applicant

  1. Raymond McCord

Respondents

  1. Her Majesty's Government
  2. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
  3. The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union

Transcripts

Monday 5 December 2016

Tuesday 6 December 2016

Wednesday 7 December 2016

Thursday 8 December 2016

Feedback

The Justices are aware of the public interest in this case and the strong feelings associated with the wider political questions of the UK's departure from the EU (which we stress are not the subject of this appeal). The Justices' duty is to consider the legal questions impartially, and decide the case according to the law. The range of parties and interveners already before the Court is such that the Justices are satisfied that all issues and points of view will be represented. We therefore hope you will understand that the Court is not in a position to consider further submissions or correspondence on the substance of the legal questions before them.

If you have any feedback on the services outlined above, experience any problems in accessing material or spot any mistakes in Supreme Court resources, please let us know by email.