Brexit: Lords contemplate new ‘UK treaty court’ to sit above Supreme Court

By on

Interesting options for post-withdrawal dispute resolution

A House of Lords select committee has heard evidence from academics and think tanks this week on what court could govern the final Brexit treaty and hear citizens’ rights cases. One of those options is the creation of a “UK treaty court” which would sit above the UK’s existing Supreme Court to hear matters relating to the trade deal.

Raphael Hogarth, research associate at the Institute for Government, explained to the EU Justice Sub-Committee that a UK treaty court would only work if the trade deal adopted a so-called “two-pillar system”. This is where there is a separate pillar of cases dealing with matters which would have to be considered by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

Hogarth talked through some of the other options available to the UK government: the most-talked about option is that the UK and the EU agree to the jurisdiction of the existing EFTA court (which currently governs treaties between the EU and the EEA countries).

The latest comments from across Legal Cheek

But there could also be a “joint court” with representation from the EU and the UK and, potentially, representation from a neutral third party. The fourth option cited by the Institute for Government is using arbitration which is frequently adopted for international treaties. Last but not least, option five would be “dispute resolution by joint committee” which Switzerland currently uses in its agreements with the EU but with which the EU has recently expressed dissatisfaction.

Evidence given at the session demonstrated that the EU will only agree to a dispute resolution process which, it believes, will allow it to retain “autonomy over EU law”, as Hogarth put it.

Hogarth was critical of concerns raised by Lord Neuberger last summer about the role of judges in post-Brexit rulings. The ex-president of the Supreme Court, at the time, raised concerns that the UK government had not made it clear enough in its Withdrawal Bill whether UK judges should consider the judgments of the CJEU after exit day. Hogarth described this as “an extraordinary intervention” by Neuberger into the Brexit debate.

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Newsletter



There was a BBC documentary which revealed that over the night of the referendum, ukip donor, Arron banks made a huge sum of money through currency speculation. It might have been 250m from memory.

It also revealed that Banks formerly managed a stock market find for the billionaire Warren Buffett.

Shortly after banks raked in his 250m, garage quit ukip.

I like to entertain the idea of banks playing sorcerer’s apprentice with UKIP, farage and the public and, now the dust has settled, the sorcerers such as Soros, Buffet, mercury asset management etc are amazed at what the apprentice’s magic achieved and are busy trying to cast their own spells to calm the cauldron.

Retaining the ecj under a new name is such a spell.



The House of Lords is a den of treasonous vipers and should be abolished.







cruz john

There is the best place for the student it is a lot of material for the student any kind of study like an essay, assignment, thesis, etc.It is the better platform for the student making
University Assignment Services for the all of student academic level.



I’m sure Lord Neuberger was devastated that this chap who graduated in 2016 considered his intervention “extraordinary”. I would imagine most reasonably informed observers would have considered it quite extraordinary of Lord Neuberger not to comment in all the circumstances.



lets have another referendum- leaving EU discussions are a farce.



Ah yes, the delusion that the UK and a union of 27 other countries are equal in this negotiation.


Comments are closed.

Related Stories