header-logo header-logo

Brexit and the justice system

25 October 2018
Issue: 7814 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Question marks over lingua franca status of English law post-Brexit

Brexit is causing a loss of confidence in the use of English law in contracts, the Justice Committee has heard.

Giving evidence this week, Clifford Chance partner Kate Gibbons said English law has always been the ‘lingua franca’ for contracts but ‘now people are taking a breath and asking if it remains appropriate’.

‘There is no torrent of concern but a slight loosening of the tooth in the mouth. It’s a question that’s being asked, but the longer we go without a clear resolution, the more there is a tendency to wiggle that tooth.’

She said financial clients need more certainty, for example, there is a risk that clients dealing in derivatives may have ongoing contractual obligations that they can’t comply with after Brexit.

Bar Chair Andrew Walker QC said: ‘The Netherlands, France, Germany and Belgium are all setting up commercial courts in the English language because of the opportunity that they see in Brexit, while the Irish are saying “come to Dublin”.’ He said some barristers have already taken steps to become members of the Irish Bar because they understand they risk losing their EU law practices if they do not.

Gibbons added: ‘If we could say straight away there is mutual enforcement of judgments and recognition of jurisdiction then we would get rid of most of [the concerns].’

Simon Davis, Law Society vice-president, said: ‘The choice of law was already fiercely competitive, and this has given the competition an extra stick to beat us with’. Davis said about 1,000 solicitors have requalified in Ireland, while Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer and Eversheds Sutherland are now the biggest firms in Dublin.

For family law, the panel agreed there are fallbacks if there is no deal but said these were not as good as the existing system and would cost more, take longer and add to the burden on families. They agreed with Justice Committee Chair Bob Neill that there could be a return to parallel proceedings in divorce cases.

Also giving evidence this week, Justice Minister Lucy Frazer QC said she recognised there is a gap on provision for divorce, adding: ‘The plan is to get a deal as close as possible to what we’ve got.’

Issue: 7814 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll