header-logo header-logo

02 December 2016 / Jonathan Harris KC
Issue: 7725 / Categories: Features , Brexit , Procedure & practice , EU , Profession
printer mail-detail

Brexit & cross-border dispute resolution

Will the English courts still be top choice post-Brexit, asks Jonathan Harris QC

  • It is unlikely that the reputation and attractiveness of litigating in the English courts will disappear post-Brexit.

Amid the myriad legal issues and uncertainties generated by Brexit, a key question is how the litigation market in England, and the supremacy that London enjoys as a centre for cross-border dispute resolution, might be affected. The recent government announcement that EU laws will, wherever possible, be enacted into domestic law pending further review might assuage that uncertainty, at least in the medium term. That exercise is not, however, as straightforward as it might appear, particularly where reciprocity with member states is required to render EU laws effective.

The landscape of English civil litigation is unrecognisable from that which existed in 1972 prior to the UK joining the then-EEC. In large measure, there is now a set of harmonised EU rules for cross-border dispute resolution. For instance, there are harmonised rules on jurisdiction, enforcement of judgments, choice of law

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlotte Coleman & Qaisar Sheikh

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlotte Coleman & Qaisar Sheikh

Two promoted to partner in property litigation and education teams

Dorsey & Whitney LLP—Peter Knust

Dorsey & Whitney LLP—Peter Knust

Cross-border finance and restructuring specialist joins as of counsel in London

Powell Gilbert—Callum Beamish-Lacey

Powell Gilbert—Callum Beamish-Lacey

IP firm promotes litigator to partnership

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll