A LEGAL challenge aimed at stopping Boris Johnson's suspension of Parliament has been temporarily rejected at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.

A cross-party group of MPs and peers filed a petition at Scotland's highest civil court earlier this summer aiming to stop the Prime Minister being able to prorogue Parliament.

They called for an interim interdict on Thursday to halt prorogation until a final decision has been made on the case.

On Friday, Judge Lord Doherty dismissed the action ahead of a full hearing originally set for September 6, ruling the Prime Minister had the powers to ask the Queen to suspend Parliament.

Doherty said: "I'm not satisfied that it has been demonstrated that there's a need for an interim suspension or an interim interdict to be granted at this stage.

"A substantive hearing is set to place for Friday September 6, before the first possible date parliament could be prorogued."

Aidan O’Neill QC, representing the petitioners – led by SNP MP Joanna Cherry QC and LibDem leader Jo Swinson, and aided by Jo Maugham of the Good Law Project – argued for the substantive hearing to be moved forward.

He said: "There is an urgency to this - any delay is prejudicial - not just to the prejudice of the petitioners, but to the country as a whole."

The hearing was then changed from Friday September 6 to Tuesday in the "interest of justice".

Lord Doherty said: "I'm going to move the substantive hearing forward to Tuesday.

"Weighing consideration in the balance, it's in the interest of justice that it proceeds sooner rather than later."

READ MORE: Boris Johnson's move to prorogue Parliament challenged in court

A request was also made by the petitioners that Johnson issue a legally-binding statement to the court, known as an "affidavit", over his reasons for the suspension.

This is not automatically granted but were it to be, the Prime Minister could potentially be called to face cross-examination.

Brexit Secretary Michael Russell commented: "I pay tribute to the MPs and peers, led by parliamentarians from Scotland, who brought this action to assert their right to hold the UK Government to account.

"The impact of leaving the EU, and particularly leaving without a deal, will be grave, profound and damaging.

"Attempting to deprive the Westminster Parliament of the opportunity to scrutinise the UK Government's plans, and preventing it from being able to legislate in respect of the UK Government's plans, is undemocratic and unconstitutional.

"All MPs and all citizens, regardless of their position on leaving the EU, should be alarmed by the Prime Minister's plan to avoid debate and prevent the legislative action necessary to avert a catastrophic no deal exit."