WATCH: "no doubt" PM will ask for Brexit extension if no deal secured

A judge has concluded that "there can be no doubt" that Boris Johnson will ask European leaders for a Brexit extension if he fails to secure a deal.

Lord Pentland ruled on Monday that there was no need for him to pass a legal order which would compel the PM to follow the recently passed Benn Act.

The legislation, named after Labour MP Hilary Benn, was passed by Parliament. It forces the government to seek more time from the EU in the event of it being unsuccessful in negotiations with the EU later this month.

However, in recent weeks, Mr Johnson has made statements which his critics say show he’d be willing to act unlawfully and pursue a so called ‘hard’’ Brexit.

This prompted businessman Dale Vince, SNP MP Joanna Cherry QC and English barrister Jo Maugham QC to launch an action against the Prime Minister at Scotland’s highest civil court.

Their advocate Aidan O’Neill QC wanted Lord Pentland to pass an interdict forcing the PM to comply with the law.

The government’s lawyer Andrew Webster QC told the court that the Prime Minister would follow the legislation and act lawfully.

In a written judgement issued on Monday, Lord Pentland ruled in favour of the PM, saying he was satisfied the government would act lawfully as it would have serious repercussions for the British constitution.

He wrote: "It would be destructive of one of the core principles of constitutional propriety and of the mutual trust that is the bedrock of the relationship between the court and the crown for the Prime Minister or the government to renege on what they have assured the court that the Prime Minister intends to do."

The case ruled upon by Lord Pentland is running alongside another case which has been raised by the petitioners in the Inner House of the Court of Session.

In that case, which is expected to be heard on Tuesday, the petitioners are seeking to have the court write to European leaders to seek an extension in the event of Mr Johnson refusing to follow the terms of the Benn Act.

The petitioners are appealing to the Inner House’s Nobile Officium - a power which the Court of Session has and isn’t shared by counterpart courts in other parts of the UK.

Lord Pentland heard submissions from Mr O’Neill and Mr Webster on Friday. Mr O’Neill said his clients sought legal orders because the Prime Minster couldn’t be trusted to follow the law.

Mr Webster told the court that Mr Johnson would follow the act.

The advocate said the PM would send a letter requesting an extension if his meeting with October 17 meeting with his European leaders ends in deadlock and Parliament refuses to back him.

On Monday, Lord Pentland ruled in favour of the government.

He said that Mr Webster’s submissions were made with the authority of the government’s Scots law advisor, the Advocate General Lord Keen of Elie QC.

Lord Pentland said this meant the submissions reflected actual government policy.

He wrote: "The Advocate General has set out clearly and unequivocally the Prime Minister’s intention to comply with his statutory duties under the 2019 act.

"This has been done so by way of detailed and specific averments in written pleadings and put before the court on the professional responsibility of those acting for the Prime Minister and the government with the express authority of the Advocate General; he himself is, of course, an officer of the court.

"The Prime Minister and the government having thus formulated and presented to the court their considered legal position, there is no proper basis on which the court could hold that they are nonetheless liable to fail to do what they have in effect undertaken to the court what they will do.

"It is accepted by the petitioners that what the Prime Minister has said he will do would amount to compliance with all his statutory obligations under the 2019 act and with his obligation not to frustrate the purpose of the legislation. I consider that acceptance to be well founded."

In conclusion, Lord Pentland found that he did not have to pass any orders compelling the PM to act in a particular way.

He added: "In my opinion it is neither necessary or appropriate that orders for which Mr O’Neill moved at the hearing should be granted.

"In particular, I consider that the averments (and the intentions of the Prime Minister as set out by Mr Webster) confirm the position to be that a) that the first respondent is subject to the terms of the 2019 act, b) in the event of neither of the conditions.. being satisfied, the first respondent will comply with section 1(4) no later than October 19 2019 and c) that he will not frustrate the purpose of the 2019 act or the purpose of any of its provisions.

"In other words there can be no doubt that the first respondent now accepts that he must comply with the requirements of the 2019 act and has affirmed that he intends to do so."

On Monday afternoon, one of the petitioners in the action against Mr Johnson confirmed they were appealing against Lord Pentland’s decision.

Jo Maugham QC used social media network Twitter to confirm his intention to appeal.

He tweeted: "As we have extracted promises from the Govt, the question whether the loss matters depends on whether you think I am right or the Court is right.

"But on any view, there are now risks of an unlawful Brexit that would not, had the decision gone the other way, have existed."

He also tweeted: "I expect the Inner House of the Court of Session tomorrow to hear our appeal."