It would trigger a constitutional crisis if the Supreme Court upheld this vague and undemocratic verdict'.
In legal circles, Sir Terence has been described as the ‘epitome of a modern judge’.
Leave campaigners said the judges had 'declared war on democracy'. The row exploded yesterday morning when a panel led by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas, ruled that Mrs May cannot trigger Article 50 – the formal two-year process for leaving the EU – without a vote by Parliament.
If the Government's appeal is not successful, an Act of Parliament will be required to trigger Article 50.
This would allow MPs or the unelected House of Lords to put down amendments delaying Article 50, insisting Britain must stay in the single market, or block its passage altogether.
He served for two years as chairman of the Law Commission – the Government’s legal reform body – where he was credited with suggesting ‘enlightened’ ways of updating laws.
The panel’s third judge, Lord Justice Sales, came from the same chambers as Tony Blair and once billed taxpayers more than £3million.
The judgment by Lord Thomas – a founding member of the European Law Institute, a club of lawyers and academics aiming to 'improve' EU law – throws into chaos Mrs May's timetable for invoking Article 50 in March next year.
They warned that Mrs May could be forced to hold an election early next year if the courts did not back down.
He defended the Blair government in a 2005 court challenge over the decision not to hold a public inquiry into the Iraq war.
The 54-year-old studied at both Oxford and Cambridge and was called to the Bar in 1985.
Condemnation of the verdict – which few had expected – was swift and devastating.
MPs pointed out that it had been brought by embittered Remainers and a wealthy fund manager, who had formed an 'unholy alliance' with the judiciary.
When a Bangladeshi student’s lawyers made two last-minute applications to keep him in the country on the eve of his deportation, the judge described it as ‘an intolerable waste of public money’, an abuse of the courts, and ‘totally without merit’, and threatened lawyers who acted in the same way in the future with ‘vigorous action’.