“A threat to democracy” – Mishcon de Reya in the firing line over Brexit legal action

Headline makers: Mishcon story covered across the world

Headline makers: Mishcon story covered across the world

Has any law firm ever made the news like London law firm Mishcon de Reya did yesterday? It was the subject of headlines around the world – and faced accusations that it could cause riots on the streets – after announcing on Sunday that it was representing a group of unnamed clients in seeking to ensure that it is Parliament, rather than the Prime Minister, that triggers article 50 and the UK’s formal exit from the EU.

In the absence of any named clients, the focus fell on the law firm itself.

Foreign secretary Philip Hammond said: “I very much deprecate the idea of big law firms trying to interfere in our political system to overturn the will of the people.”

Arguing that determining the UK’s future relationship with the EU was a political, rather than legal, decision, he added: “We don’t need ultra-high-paid lawyers trampling all over the political space.”

The front page of the pro-Brexit Daily Express said: “Fury over legal bid to BLOCK EU exit: Top lawyers in threat to referendum vote & DEMOCRACY.”

The story began: “There was outrage and warnings of riots on the streets after law firm Mishcon de Reya prepared to lodge a plea at the High Court today. It would force MPs to pass an Act of Parliament before starting the departure from the EU.”

It quoted Conservative MEP David Campbell Bannerman: “I have seen before in Northern Ireland what happens when democracy is ignored. We will have riots on the streets if this result is blocked in some way and if this legal challenge is an attempt to allow Remain supporters to use Parliament to ignore the will of the people.”

According to City AM, Conservative MP Kwasi Kwarteng said the law firm’s manoeuvre was “outrageous and incredibly arrogant”, adding “these people are just grandstanding”.

UKIP MP Douglas Carswell said: “I suspect this will confirm the worst fears of many of millions of people who fear the establishment trying to subvert the outcome of the referendum. If, as a result of lawyers, the clear majority view was subverted, then god help us, we would go into an extremely dangerous situation.”

The paper said Conservative MP Bernard Jenkin added: “This is an extraordinary attempt to disrupt the consequence of a referendum… We have a democracy, the democracy is working fine and we don’t need the judges to intervene with it.”

Tom Harris, a former Labour MP turned lobbyist who writes for the Daily Telegraph, was similarly uncompromising. “I’d rather run the country by unending referendums than submit to the tyranny of the lawyer acting on behalf of an unrepresentative, wealthy and entitled elite,” he wrote yesterday.

“If our new prime minister wishes to trigger article 50 by passing Donald Tusk a Clinton’s card with the inscription, ‘We’re off now – it’s been fun! Love and kisses xxx’, then that is her prerogative.

“In the meantime, law firms will get all the publicity they want, their indignant clients will get to waste their money, and Parliament will, in the end, have its say, over and over and over again. Which is fine, because we, the people, have already had ours. What a pity some people just weren’t listening.”

Martin Howe QC, chairman of pro-Brexit group Lawyers for Britain, argued that “Mishcon’s proposed challenge is devoid of all legal merit. As a matter of law, giving of notification under article 50 of the Treaty on European Union is a matter of Crown prerogative…

“It is deeply objectionable but sadly not unexpected that those who suffer from a deep-rooted contempt for democracy should resort to legal antics of this kind in an attempt to frustrate the democratic decision of the British people.”

    Readers Comments

  • Scep Tick says:

    An affront to democracy to follow the majority of voters?

  • Tamzie Hollands says:

    This action would not be even seen as necessary, if the approach to the referendum had been democratic! This would only have been the case if the result had been gained through basing the arguments to leave on truths rather than a fiction. Both sides should have been required to present a legal, decent, honest and truthful argument, in exactly the same way a company trying to sell products and services has to in the UK. This referendum was an affront to all things honest and decent – not one argument that the Leave protagonists presented has been upheld (£350m a week to the NHS anyone?!)! I am still ashamed to be British two weeks on.

  • K C Chu says:

    Democracy is, and should, only be afforded to real natural individual persons.

    I can safely say, even not as a practising barrister or solicitor in England and Wales, that simply, NO judge in the High Court would possibly allow and grant leave to an application for a judicial review, against the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte an anonymous plaintiff or anonymous plaintiffs. This is just simply unheard of!

    A victim of rape perhaps, who is making an application for a judicial review against the Home Secretary, would probably be allowed to avail herself continued protection of anonymity, of course, but that is probably about as far as anonymity in judicial review goes!

    The principle of open justice surely means that an anonymous plaintiff should NOT be allowed to apply for permission for a judicial review for a purely civil matter not involving the criminal law and the criminal justice system, and never mind mounting such matters as a constitutional legal challenge, and of largely a political rather than legal nature!

    The second post is perhaps a just elegant rant, but consider this … Who should be the ones who get to decide what arguments are based upon fact, and what are based upon fiction? If it should be an unelected judiciary or an equally-unelected administrative tribunal who gets to decide, then ultimately, what is democracy for?!

  • Walshkite says:

    I, for one, would not be sorry if Mishcons found themselves at the receiving end of a Wasted Costs Order made against the Partners personally. They are also sailing very close to the wind in terms of professional conduct.

    Who are these anonymous clients they purport to represent? The public is entitled to know if their threats are to have any credibility.

  • Richard says:

    Funny how Brexiteers suddenly think they can rewrite all the rules – the UK is a representative democracy, because that’s what prevents us from becoming a ship of fools.

Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


You win some, you lose some – class actions post Google

In November, Google received two court rulings, through which it both closed and opened the door to class actions against it. So what do the decisions mean for future class actions?

Clinical negligence, a changing market – part 1

The consolidation of law firms through merger and acquisition has resulted in fewer, but more sophisticated and expert clinical negligence practices.

How to set your law firm up for success in 2022

At this time of year, law firms around the country are busy strategising and implementing plans for the coming 12 months. Forward-planning is a crucial part of a firm’s success, but where to start?

Loading animation