The Scottish and Welsh devolved governments will be joined by two other groups as interveners in the forthcoming Supreme Court hearing on whether ministers are obliged to grant MPs a vote on the trigger mechanism for leaving the EU.

Court officials said on Friday that Scotland’s lord advocate and the counsel general for Wales had been granted intervener status. The Independent Workers Union of Great Britain and a group of Britons abroad called the Expat Interveners were also granted official status.

In addition, the court confirmed that the attorney-general for Northern Ireland had made a reference regarding devolution issues relating to that jurisdiction and therefore permission to intervene was unnecessary.

It is understood that James Wolffe, QC, Scotland’s lord advocate, will make submissions regarding the relevance of points of Scottish law to the proceedings, so far as they do not also form part of the law of England and Wales. The hearing of Miller and Dos Santos v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union is listed for December 5 to 8, with all 11 of the Supreme Court justices sitting together for the first time in the court’s history.

This month the High Court ruled that the government must allow parliament to vote on the Article 50 process set out in the Treaty of Lisbon that will trigger the UK’s departure from the bloc.

A group of litigation funders faces a £30 million-plus bill after the Court of Appeal said that they were liable for indemnity costs in a ruling that will profoundly affect the nascent third-party model of financing cases.

The ruling on Friday in the Excalibur case – which involved a long-running $1.6 billion-plus dispute over oil exploration in Kurdistan – should serve “as a warning to third-party funders of the potential perils of financing expensive international litigation without carrying out a rigorous analysis of the claim”, according to lawyers for Texas Keystone, the energy company that ended up on the winning side.

According to the lawyers at the London office of the US law firm Jones Day, the Court of Appeal “wholeheartedly supported” a ruling from Lord Justice Clarke in the High Court that “increased the exposure of Excalibur’s funders in this litigation”.

The lawyers said that the £30 million figure was “significantly above and beyond what was envisaged when the funders decided to support the litigation with the promise of lucrative rewards if Excalibur’s claim succeeded or was settled on favourable terms by the defendants”.

The ruling could hit hard the wallet of one of the City of London’s “magic circle” law firms. The Lawyer magazine reported that Clifford Chance had settled with one of Excalibur’s funders last year, with the firm understood to have agreed to pay the indemnity costs bill if the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court ruling.

A spokesman for Clifford Chance told The Brief that it would not confirm that point and that its agreement with Psari Holdings was confidential.

The Association of Litigation Funders searched for a positive angle to the ruling. It welcomed Lord Justice Tomlinson’s “reaffirmation of litigation funding as ‘an accepted and judicially sanctioned activity perceived to be in the public interest’”.

It also highlighted the Court of Appeal’s “recognition” of the association as the “voluntary regulator of professional funders”. The association also pointed out that the court had drawn a distinction between “professional funders” and “the funders [in the Excalibur case who] were inexperienced and did not adopt … a professional approach to the task of assessing the merits of the case”.

A council, a social worker and a police officer criticised by a family court judge investigating child sex abuse allegations have won a fight to remain anonymous.
The Court of Appeal ruled that the names of the council, social worker and police officer should not be included in the published judgment.

And in a novel move, it was also ordered that the family court judge who made the original criticisms cannot be named.

Three appeal judges concluded, in a judgment published on Thursday, that the council, social worker and police officer had not been treated fairly. Sir James Munby, Lord Justice McFarlane and Lord Justice Christopher Clarke had analysed the case at Court of Appeal hearings in London.

The hearings had been staged in public but limits had been placed on what journalists could report. The appeal judges said that “only the barest background” about the family court proceedings, which were overseen at private hearings, could be revealed.

They listed the case only as “re: W (A child)”. They also gave no indication of where the family court hearings had been staged.

Lord Justice McFarlane said that the family court judge had considered whether a number of children should be taken into council care. During that litigation, the family court judge had been asked to make decisions about the truth of sex abuse allegations made by a girl. He had dismissed these allegations and criticised the council involved, a number of professionals and, in particular, a social worker and a police officer.

The judge had said that he would name the council, the social worker and the police officer in a ruling which he would make public. However, the council, social worker and police officer complained of unfairness and asked appeal judges to rule that names should not be revealed.

A Jersey accountant is attempting to take his long-running battle to rip off the veil of secrecy that covers the provisions of royal wills to the highest court in the country.

Robert Brown has applied to the Supreme Court for the justices to hear his case to open the will of Princess Margaret as he attempts to prove that he is her illegitimate child.

Brown has claimed that a 100-year policy – backed by a secret court practice direction – of sealing royal wills is “a huge and constitutionally important” issue.

Wills are generally open public documents, but since 1911, the wills of senior members of the royal family have been sealed. Brown has argued that the decision to seal royal wills was originally taken to protect Edwardian royal family members from embarrassing revelations in their wills and that it has been unconstitutionally maintained by the courts and a succession of attorneys-general.

Brown was refused leave by the Court of Appeal to apply to the Supreme Court, so he has made a direct submission. In April last year, the appeal court judges ruled that the secret practice direction raises no legal or conditional issue.

Despite maintaining that he is Princess Margaret’s illegitimate child, Brown has argued that his “identity is not the central issue” of his application. He said that instead, his bid to lift the secret practice order represents a “unique opportunity to define important British …. constitutional law as to separation of powers”.

Senior Tories warn May to give up Brexit court appeal – The Times

Legalise cannabis to boost tax income and save millions, say MPs – Sky News

Lawyer brand Duchess of York’s Fake Sheikh claim as ‘defective and embarrassing’ – Mail on Sunday

Judge accuses City law firm of email ‘blackmail’ – The Lawyer

Villagers take Shell to High Court over Niger oil spills – The Times

Trump turns to Kirkland and Jones Day lawyers to lead justice team transition – Law.com