This case concerns the conglomeration of two appeals, one from the High Court of England and Wales and one from the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland. In the case of Prime Hydration, we see word of mouth (or digital word of mouth) resonate with more speed than COVID at a super-spreader event. Don’t believe me? Here’s the at-home rapid test: Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. a b Blitz, James; Croft, Jane (25 September 2019). "Parliament the winner in prorogation case, say lawyers". Financial Times. London. Archived from the original on 26 September 2019 . Retrieved 27 September 2019. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union (1995), which held that a minister's political accountability to Parliament did not render them immune from legal accountability in the courts.

Did this prorogation have the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification? What could they possibly be looking for, you’re wondering. And what’s gotten them as excited as a five-year-old in a candy store? It’s clear they couldn’t find what they were looking for. Paul and KSI created Prime Hydration utilizing the power of their name IDs and their genius around social engagement to hype and get their product into the hands of millions – but what comes next is more difficult — and telling about its longevity. Ali, Junade (7 October 2019). "Written evidence" (PDF). House of Lords Constitution Committee. FPA (11). Archived (PDF) from the original on 25 October 2019 . Retrieved 23 December 2019. Picture this: it’s just over a year ago, in the more innocent time before the global war of January 2022. Winter has set in, middle school-aged kids running feverishly through the aisle of your local grocery store, shouting to each other while filming their scavenger hunt. “Did you find it? Did you find it?”

Date: 24th September 2019 Neutral Citation: [2019] UKSC 41 Court: Supreme Court Link: Link to Judgment Overhear: The product is bought NOT through paid media channels like IG (post an ad, watch it run) but rather through some means of hearing about the product, either virally or digitally. Kids who bought Prime Hydration heard about it on social channels, saw their friends drink it at school – or even watched a Logan Paul influencer-laden video. “I must have this product that I’ve heard so much about, and it verily must be the bee’s knees” (how I imagine a 12-year-old thinks). Which leads to: Ali, Junade (24 September 2019). "The Fixed Term Parliament Act: A Recipe for Constitutional Crisis and Prorogation?". Oxford University Political Blog. Archived from the original on 23 December 2019 . Retrieved 23 December 2019.

Attorney-General v De Keyser's Royal Hotel Ltd (1920), which held that the royal prerogative could not be used to circumvent statutory law.Helm, Toby; Stewart, Heather (24 August 2019). "Boris Johnson seeks legal advice on five-week parliament closure ahead of Brexit". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 24 August 2019 . Retrieved 25 September 2019. Coates, Sam (16 July 2019). "Boris Johnson team considering plan to suspend parliament in run up to Brexit". Sky News. Archived from the original on 2 November 2019 . Retrieved 24 September 2019. R (on the application of Miller) v The Prime Minister; Cherry and Others v Advocate General for Scotland [2019] UKSC 41at para. 50(24 September 2019)

As the great Axl Rose asked, “where do we go now?” so, too, do Logan Paul and KSI ask where do they take their brand. It’s now larger than they are, in many respects — a brand that has outgrown the already monolithic personalities of their creators. And really, isn’t that what all creators would like — to see their creations outlive them? On 28 August 2019, Jacob Rees-Mogg, in the role of Lord President of the Council, convened a small Privy Council meeting with the Queen whilst she was in residence at Balmoral Castle. [a] The Queen gave her consent to prorogation, to start between 9 and 12 September, and end with the State Opening of Parliament on 14 October. [13] The prorogation ceremony in Parliament took place in the early hours of 10 September 2019 amidst tense scenes in the House of Commons—its Speaker, John Bercow, described such a long prorogation as an "act of executive fiat"—and opposition boycotts of the ceremony in the House of Lords. [14] The announcement of prorogation led to two cases being immediately filed—one in England by Gina Miller and one in Northern Ireland by Raymond McCord—and for the applicants in a third case in Scotland headed by Joanna Cherry to request their case to be expedited. [15] Miller and McCord [ edit ] The number of justices who sit on a Supreme Court case must be odd to prevent tied votes. ( Bowcott 2019c) Prorogation". Parliament of the United Kingdom. Archived from the original on 17 June 2019 . Retrieved 12 September 2019.The second day heard from the victors in each lower court case; the government, represented by James Eadie, argued that prorogation was "a well-established constitutional function exercised by the executive" and that decisions about prorogation were matters of "high policy". Eadie argued that in the absence of legislation that regulated the power of prorogation, it was not appropriate for the judiciary to "design a set of rules" to judge prorogation by; when asked by the justices how prorogation was compatible with parliamentary sovereignty, he answered that prorogation always had the effect of temporarily suspending parliamentary scrutiny, and parliamentarians could continue scrutinising the government once Parliament resumed. Eadie was also questioned why there was no signed witness statement that testified to the reasons for prorogation. O'Neill, who represented the Cherry litigants, argued that the decision to prorogue was "taken in bad faith" and "for an improper purpose" and that the Court of Session opinion offered an outsider perspective "400 miles from Westminster" to that effect. O'Neill agreed with Eadie that it would not be appropriate for the Court to create such rules, but argued that it was nevertheless "the province of the courts" to decide whether prorogation was constitutional. [31] Is the question of whether the Prime Minister’s advice to the Queen was lawful justiciable in a court of law? It was held, on the first issue for consideration, that there is no doubt that the courts have jurisdiction to decide upon the existence and limits of a prerogative power. The courts have exercised a supervisory jurisdiction over the lawfulness of acts of the Government for centuries, as long ago as 1611. The lawfulness of the Prime Minister’s advice to the Queen was therefore determined justiciable.

In the same vein, John Finnis, professor emeritus of law and legal philosophy at the University of Oxford, considered that the Supreme Court had "forayed" into politics, calling the judgment "a historic mistake" and "a misuse of judicial power". According to Finnis, prorogation is ruled by conventions, not by justiciable law, therefore the matters of prorogation have to be dealt with by Parliament itself and the court has no say in them. [37] McCord (Raymond), JR83 and Jamie Waring's Applications v The Prime Minister & Ors". British and Irish Legal Information Institute . Retrieved 11 August 2021. The High Court of England and Wales had held that the issue was non-justiciable and the Scottish Court at first instance (the Outer House) agreed with that view. However, the Inner House, Scotland’s appeal court, held that the matter was justiciable. Interestingly, the government conceded in the Scottish proceedings that the issue could be justiciable in some, if not these, circumstances. The Inner House held that the prorogation had been unlawful because it stymied Parliament at a crucial time: “The circumstances demonstrate that the true reason for the prorogation is to reduce the time available for Parliamentary scrutiny of Brexit at a time when such scrutiny would appear to be a matter of considerable importance, given the issues at stake.”as per Lord Carloway, The Lord President in Joanna Cherry QC MP v The AdvocateGeneral [2019] CSIH 49, at [53].Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1984), which held that the royal prerogative was subject to judicial review. After the ruling, Johnson was criticised by opposition leaders: Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn brought forward his conference keynote speech and invited Johnson to "consider his position and become the shortest-serving Prime Minister there's ever been"; SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon demanded Johnson's resignation and urged Parliament to table a motion of no confidence if he did not resign; Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson said that Johnson was not "fit to be Prime Minister"; and Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage called prorogation "the worst political decision ever" and called on Johnson to fire his adviser Dominic Cummings for suggesting the plan. [45] Supreme Court: Parliament suspension case 'a difficult question of law' ". BBC News. 17 September 2019. Archived from the original on 8 June 2020 . Retrieved 24 September 2019.