Miller v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017)
URI: https://gptkb.org/entity/Miller_v._Secretary_of_State_for_Exiting_the_European_Union_%282017%29
GPTKB entity
Statements (57)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:legal_case
|
| gptkbp:case_analysis |
Analysis of the legal arguments presented.
Relevant to discussions on sovereignty and democracy. |
| gptkbp:case_impact_description |
The case had a lasting impact on UK constitutional law.
|
| gptkbp:case_judgment_date |
January 24, 2017.
|
| gptkbp:case_judgment_details |
Details of the Supreme Court's ruling.
|
| gptkbp:case_number |
[2017] UKSC 5
Involved constitutional questions regarding Brexit. |
| gptkbp:case_outcome |
Parliamentary approval required
The ruling required the government to consult Parliament. 8-3 ruling Influenced public opinion on Brexit. Strengthened parliamentary democracy |
| gptkbp:case_significance |
Legal significance for future Brexit negotiations.
Set a precedent for future Brexit-related cases Significant for constitutional law in the UK. |
| gptkbp:case_types |
Public law case
|
| gptkbp:consequences |
Implications for the Brexit negotiation process.
|
| gptkbp:court |
gptkb:London
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States |
| gptkbp:court_judgment |
Judgment emphasized parliamentary sovereignty.
|
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom
|
| gptkbp:effective_date |
January 24, 2017
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
Miller v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017)
|
| gptkbp:impact |
Parliamentary sovereignty
|
| gptkbp:judged_by |
gptkb:Lord_Neuberger
January 24, 2017 Judgment reinforced the importance of parliamentary approval. |
| gptkbp:judicial_review |
Judicial review of government actions
Judicial review of executive powers. |
| gptkbp:legal_context |
gptkb:Brexit_referendum
Context of the Brexit referendum. |
| gptkbp:legal_framework |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
Parliament must be consulted before triggering Article 50. Judicial outcome affected Brexit timeline. |
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
gptkb:Article_50_of_the_Treaty_on_European_Union
Challenge to the government's Brexit strategy. Government's use of prerogative powers Established the principle of parliamentary involvement. |
| gptkbp:legal_outcome |
Parliament must be involved in Brexit negotiations
Significant for the role of Parliament in Brexit. The court ruled that the government could not trigger Article 50 without parliamentary approval. |
| gptkbp:legal_principle |
Prerogative powers
|
| gptkbp:legal_repercussions |
Influenced subsequent Brexit legislation
|
| gptkbp:legal_representation |
gptkb:David_Pannick
|
| gptkbp:material |
Gina Miller challenged the government's authority.
|
| gptkbp:outcome |
Government must seek parliamentary approval before triggering Article 50
|
| gptkbp:precedent |
Constitutional law in the UK
Established legal precedent for Brexit cases |
| gptkbp:propulsion |
gptkb:Gina_Miller
|
| gptkbp:public_interest |
High public interest in Brexit
|
| gptkbp:related_cases |
Cherry/ Miller case
|
| gptkbp:responds_to |
gptkb:Secretary_of_State_for_Exiting_the_European_Union
|
| gptkbp:significance |
Impact on Brexit process
|
| gptkbp:sound |
December 5, 2016
|
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:Royal_Courts_of_Justice
|
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
4
|