THERESA May faced embarrassment today after she insisted Britain would take back control of its laws from Europe after Brexit but her officials later admitted European judges would continue to have some jurisdiction for years after withdrawal.

Publishing the UK Government’s new position paper on judicial disputes, the officials conceded the European Court of Justice[ECJ] would be able to over-rule British laws during the so-called transitional period, which is expected to last for most of the three years until the next General Election in 2022.

Plus, any new dispute resolution mechanism created to adjudicate on post-Brexit rows between the UK and EU could be required to take account of, or even be bound by, the rulings of the Luxembourg-based ECJ.

The paper released by the Brexit Department ruled out any “direct” ECJ jurisdiction over UK law following Brexit, which ministers branded unnecessary, inappropriate and unprecedented.

It explained that legal disputes involving individuals and businesses should in future be decided within the UK judicial system with the UK Supreme Court as the final arbiter.

And it said a new dispute resolution mechanism - which could involve a joint committee or arbitration panel - will have to be created to deal with disagreements over the interpretation and application of the Brexit deal. The mechanism could be triggered if either side believes the other is failing to implement the terms of the agreement or has introduced legislation which breaches it.

But the Government document did not rule out the ECJ maintaining its authority during the transitional period, which is expected to last a number of years after the March 2019 deadline for Brexit, saying only that Britain would "work with the EU" on the design of interim judicial arrangements.

And it set out a range of existing arrangements involving the ECJ which could act as possible models for the new mechanism.

These include the EU's agreement with European Free Trade Association states like Norway and Iceland, which demands that "due account" be paid to the court's rulings, and a treaty with Moldova which requires an arbitration panel to be bound by its interpretation of EU law.

The document makes clear that Britain is not committed to following any of these existing models. But it does not explicitly rule out any scenario other than direct ECJ jurisdiction.

Speaking shortly before the paper's publication, the Prime Minister insisted the UK would "take back control" of its laws after Brexit.

During a visit to Surrey, she said: "What is absolutely clear, when we leave the European Union we will be leaving the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. What we will be able to do is to make our own laws.

"Parliament will make our laws. It is British judges who will interpret those laws and it will be the British Supreme Court that will be the arbiter of those laws."

But the Liberal Democrats and the Open Britain campaign claimed Mrs May had performed a “climbdown,” by suggesting there would be no “direct jurisdiction” by the ECJ, implying there might be indirect jurisdiction.

Earlier, Dominic Rabb, the UK Justice minister, insisted the Government’s commitment to Britain retaking control of judicial matters from the ECJ was “crystal clear”.

He told BBC Radio’s Today programme: “We're ending the jurisdiction of the European Court over disputes between the EU and the UK; that's not on the table.

"But look, let's also be clear about it, when we leave the EU we are taking back control over our laws. There will be divergence between the case law of the EU and the UK and it is precisely because there will be that divergence as we take back control that it makes sense for the UK to keep half an eye on the case law of the EU and for the EU to keep half an eye on the case law of the UK."

Mr Raab declared: "All this jingoistic stuff about foreign courts and foreign judges and lawyers is not the language I've ever used."

He added: "All 'direct' means is that, in relation to disputes between the UK and the EU, the jurisdiction of the European Court will not run."

However, Dominic Grieve, the former Attorney General, said the idea that Britain was somehow going to wholly escape the influence of the ECJ was “pie in the sky”.

He explained: "It's going to continue in many areas to have a very profound influence but, of course, the difference is going to be that we will no longer have any direct influence into the formation of that EU jurisprudence because we ourselves will no longer be appearing in front of the ECJ as an EU member."

His Conservative colleague, Theresa Villiers, the former Northern Ireland Secretary and Leave campaigner, said: "The problem with being subject to ECJ rulings is it means that European law takes precedence over our laws here in the UK and so if we are to implement the Leave vote and respect the result of the referendum and take back control over making our own laws, we have to leave the jurisdiction of the ECJ."

In Brussels, at a press conference, Alexander Winterstein, the European Commission spokesman, declined to comment on the UK proposals but insisted the EU's position was "very clear, very transparent and unchanged".

The remaining 27 EU states have approved negotiating guidelines, which envisage the ECJ retaining authority over the interpretation and implementation of the Brexit agreement and oversight of the treatment of European citizens in the UK.