header-logo header-logo

Brexit & cross-border dispute resolution

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

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll