text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill - Clause 26 - Status of EU Case Law
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  @ MP voted aye to allow ministers to set out the degree to which EU case law is to bind UK courts and against requiring courts and tribunals departing from retained EU case law to provide reasons and refer the case, as appropriate, to either the Supreme Court or High Court.  
  @ MP voted no not to allow ministers to set out the degree to which EU case law is to bind UK courts and to require courts and tribunals departing from retained EU case law to provide reasons and refer the case, as appropriate, to either the Supreme Court or High Court.  
  
  The majority of MPs voted to allow ministers to set out the degree to which European Union case law is to bind United Kingdom courts and against requiring courts and tribunals departing from retained European Union case law to provide reasons and refer the case, as appropriate, to either the Supreme Court or High Court.  
  
  MPs were considering the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill.[1]
  
  The motion supported by a majority of MPs in this vote was:
  
  :That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2.
  
  Lords amendment 2[2] stated:
  
  :Page 30, line 20, leave out paragraph (d) and insertâ
   	
  
  :â(d)     after subsection (5) insertâ
   	
  
  :â(5A)    
  	
  
  :Where a court or tribunal other than the Supreme Court or the High Court of Justiciary is of the opinion that any retained EU case law that is relevant to an issue before it should be departed from, that court or tribunal mustâ
   	
  :(a)    in its judgment set out the reasons for that opinion,
   	
  :and
   	
  :(b)    refer the case to the Supreme Court or, as appropriate, the High Court of Justiciary, and if the Supreme Court or High Court of Justiciary grants leave for the case to proceed, it must decide whether to depart from the EU case law on the issue before it.â, andâ
  
  The element (paragraph d) of the clause which would have been removed by the rejected amendment[3] was within Clause 26 of the Bill, and stated:
  
  :(d)after subsection (5) insertâ
  :â(5A)A Minister of the Crown may by regulations provide for â
  :(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 toâ
  (i)the Supreme Court or the High Court of Justiciary in applying the test mentioned in subsection (5), or(ii)a relevant court or relevant tribunal in applying any test provided for by virtue of paragraph (c)above.
  
  The amendment provided for in paragraph related to the [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/contents/enacted European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018]. 
  
  
  * [1] [https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2019-20/europeanunionwithdrawalagreement.html Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill. Parliament.uk website]
  * [2] [https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-01/0008/hcb8.1-2.html Lords amendments to the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill, Parliament.uk website]
  * [3] [https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/58-01/016/5801016.pdf Version of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill  as introduced to the House of Lords, 9 January 2020, Parliament.uk website]
  
  
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  