Powered by Lexis+®
Jurisdiction(s):
United Kingdom
CASE STUDY

“It's hard to quantify, right now. But at a guess, I'd say it's probably more than 50% faster, at times. It's literally that quick. We've found to be an essential practical tool. We're very satisfied.”

Walsall Council

Access all documents on Qualified majority

Qualified majority meaning

Published by a LexisNexis EU Law expert
What does Qualified majority mean?
A qualified majority is a voting threshold higher than a simple majority that a decision‑making body must meet to adopt a measure. In EU law, it is defined in the Treaties and governs most decisions of the Council of the European Union (the Council). Under the double‑majority rule, a qualified majority requires 55% of Member States (at least 15) representing at least 65% of the EU population; where the Council is not acting on a proposal from the European Commission or the High Representative, 72% of Member States representing at least 65% of the population is required. A blocking minority must include at least four Member States. Qualified majority voting applies unless the Treaties provide for unanimity or another procedure. Across England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, the expression is also used descriptively for supermajority requirements set by statute or governing rules; in UK company law the statutory term is usually “special resolution” (75%). Post‑Brexit, QMV no longer binds the UK in EU decision‑making, but remains salient for Ireland and for UK practitioners advising on EU law and trade, including under the Windsor Framework, under which some EU acts adopted by QMV may apply in Northern Ireland.
Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

View the related News about Qualified majority

NEWS
EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive stalls at Council as Germany and Italy block; France’s 5,000-employee compromise rejected; renegotiation with new Parliament likely after June 2024 elections

Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive Belgian officials, overseeing EU legislative negotiations as the current holder of the Council of the EU’s rotating presidency, reported that a meeting of national envoys failed to break the deadlock. They noted that a final compromise on the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive had been tabled for Coreper ambassadors to endorse, but, despite the presidency’s efforts, sufficient backing did not materialise. For adoption, the proposal required a qualified majority: at least 15 Member States, together accounting for a minimum of 65% of the EU’s citizens. However, Germany and Italy, along with Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta and Slovakia, all abstained, and Sweden voted against the measure. Austrian officials said they were unable to take...

Read More Right Arrow
NEWS
Court of Appeal (England and Wales): consumer status of guarantor, 'close connection' for CRA 2015, and narrow public policy defence to enforcing Hong Kong arbitral award (Eternity Sky v Zhang)

Eternity Sky Investments Ltd v Zhang (Competition & Markets Authority intervening) [2024] EWCA Civ 630 Background Mrs Zhang executed a personal guarantee backing a convertible bond offering by a company listed in Hong Kong, in which, at the material time, she and her husband were referred to as ‘the majority shareholder couple’. She commenced arbitration in Hong Kong seeking to set aside the guarantee but was ultimately unsuccessful, and was ordered to pay Eternity Sky HK$500m (about £64m) together with interest. She then attempted to oppose enforcement of the award under section 103(3) of the Arbitration Act 1996, arguing that enforcement would offend public policy, on the footing that the essential provision of the guarantee infringed her rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015). Decision The first-instance judge concluded that Mrs Zhang qualified as a ‘consumer’, albeit not a conventional one. At the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Males, with whom...

Read More Right Arrow
NEWS
EU Platform Work Directive Falters Again Under Qualified Majority Voting: No Agreement on Algorithmic Management, Data Processing Limits or Presumption of Employment; Status Tests Deferred to Member States

The Platform Work Directive Put forward in 2021, the Platform Work Directive would set the first EU‑wide standards for algorithmic oversight and the application of artificial intelligence at work. It would bar platforms from handling specific categories of personal data, including an individual’s beliefs, private communications with colleagues, or information gathered when the worker is not on duty. Although a political deal was reached on 13 December 2023, a coalition of countries led by France rejected the measure in a vote on 22 December 2023. Backing still fell short even after Belgium, which is chairing the negotiations, moved to dilute the text. Belgium removed EU‑wide benchmarks for distinguishing when an independent...

Read More Right Arrow

View the related Practice Notes about Qualified majority

PRACTICE NOTES
Civil Procedure Rule Committee Q&A (11 May 2018): updates on disclosure pilot, fixed costs, service, Business and Property Courts, pre-action protocols and open justice (England and Wales)

ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note is not maintained and is for background information purposes only Some links may no longer lead to the provisions as they stood when the guidance in this Practice Note was issued. For details of earlier and/or later changes to the CPR, see: CPR updates—overview and Procedure Rule Committee minutes—overview. Replies to the questions posed were provided by: Mr Justice Coulson—the Deputy Head of Civil Justice Mr Justice Birss—Senior Court Judge Mr Justice Kerr—Senior Court Judge District Judge Hovington—Northern Circuit District Judge Lethem—South Eastern Circuit Mr John Dagnall—Barrister at Maitland Chambers A copy of the Questions and Answers later approved by the CPR Committee (CPRC) is also available here: CPR Committee agenda Question How do the secretariat and the chair settle the CPRC’s agenda and the subjects on which it consults? Answer Answer provided by Mr Justice Coulson: The majority of the work (about 60–70%) is led by legislation and...

Read More Right Arrow
PRACTICE NOTES
Company Voluntary Arrangements and Litigation: Procedure, Binding Effect, Roles, Challenges and Failure (England and Wales)

This Practice Note provides an overview of company voluntary arrangements (CVAs) and their effect on legal proceedings from a dispute resolution angle. What is a CVA? A CVA is a contractual deal between a company and its creditors, serving as the corporate counterpart to an individual voluntary arrangement for individuals. The principal advantages of a CVA are: no requirement to prove insolvency, enabling steps to be taken early at the first indications of financial difficulty if the requisite majority approves—75% in value of creditors present in person or by proxy and voting on the proposal, and not opposed by more than 50% of independent creditors (ie those who are not associates)—it can be imposed on unsecured dissenting creditors; this process is known as cramdown (see Practice Note: The CVA proposal and procedure) the proposal binds creditors who are unaware of the CVA proposal/creditors' decision-making procedure The key constraint is the absence of any automatic moratorium (few companies qualified as...

Read More Right Arrow
PRACTICE NOTES
Occupational pension scheme trustees: roles, decision-making, TKU, funding, liability and advisers—an introductory guide for trainee and newly qualified lawyers

This guide is chiefly directed at trainees, newly qualified lawyers and others who are new to, or not familiar with, pensions law. Background Trustees occupy a pivotal position within the pensions landscape. This is especially true for occupational pension schemes, although trusts and their trustees also appear in various other forms connected to pensions in everyday practice. For instance, pension and life assurance schemes may set up trusts to receive death-in-service lump sums that are owed to beneficiaries who cannot give 'good receipt' for monies due to them at the relevant time, including children below the age of legal majority and individuals who are otherwise legally incapacitated personally. Trust-based pension schemes remain governed by the ordinary principles of trust law (e.g. the overarching duty for trustees to act in the best interests of their beneficiaries, always ultimately subject, of course, to the applicable legal framework). Moreover, pensions case law and legislation place additional duties and obligations upon pension scheme trustees in practice...

Read More Right Arrow