26 Interpretation of retained EU law and relevant separation agreement law
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 (2020 c 1) | Legislation

26  Interpretation of retained EU law and relevant separation agreement law

(1)     In section 6 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (interpretation of retained EU law)—

(a)     for “exit day”, wherever it appears, substitute “IP completion day”,

(b)     in subsection (4), after paragraph (b) (but before the “and” at the end of the paragraph) insert—

“(ba)     a relevant court or relevant tribunal is not bound by any retained EU case law so far as is provided for by regulations under subsection (5A),”,

(c)     in subsection (5) after “EU case law” insert “by virtue of subsection (4)(a) or (b)”,

(d)     after subsection (5) insert—

“(5A)     A Minister of the Crown may by regulations provide for—

(a)     a court or tribunal to be a relevant court or (as the case may be) a relevant tribunal for the purposes of this section,

(b)     the extent to which, or circumstances in which, a relevant court or relevant tribunal is not to be bound by retained EU case law,

(c)     the test which a relevant court or relevant tribunal must apply in deciding whether to depart from any retained EU case law, or

(d)     considerations which are to be relevant to—

(i)

Powered by Lexis+®
 

Popular documents

LEXISNEXIS

Direct discrimination

Direct discriminationIP COMPLETION DAY: 11pm (GMT) on 31 December 2020 marks the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period entered into following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. At this point in time (referred to in UK law as ‘IP completion day’), key transitional arrangements come to an

LEXISNEXIS

Directors’ remuneration

Directors’ remunerationCompany directors are not, by virtue only of their office as director, automatically entitled under company law to remuneration for services as a director or to reimbursement of expenses incurred in rendering such services. Power to pay directors remuneration for their

LEXISNEXIS

Costs and the ‘without prejudice’ rule

Costs and the ‘without prejudice’ ruleCosts determination and the ‘without prejudice’ ruleAn issue for practitioners is whether correspondence marked ‘without prejudice’ can be used against a party when the court comes to determine the issue of costs. The Court of Appeal in Walker v Wilsher (1889)

LEXISNEXIS

Recklessness in criminal cases

Recklessness in criminal casesWhat is recklessness?In respect of some statutory offences and common law crimes the prosecution are required to prove a mental element of recklessness on the part of the defendant.Recklessness means unjustified risk taking on the part of the accused.Prior to the House