header-logo header-logo

Brexit fears on litigation

27 July 2017
Issue: 7756 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Practitioners are concerned about the impact of Brexit on the global reputation of English law, according to the 2017 NLJ/LSLA Litigation Trends Survey 

Some 38% of respondents to the annual survey fear that other jurisdictions such as Germany and Singapore could benefit at the English and Welsh courts’ expense. They also worry about its impact on forum, choice of law and enforcement of judgments. 

Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Crosse, LSLA president, says: ‘The uniform rules under the Recast Regulation, which the UK did so much to shape, will fall away in March 2019, leaving such issues to be determined at the discretion of member state courts or on a common-law basis in the UK.

‘This is potentially a huge problem for England and Wales as a litigation hub.’

However, Crosse says there are ‘obvious steps’ that the UK government can take to avoid this outcome. It could sign up again to the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements, without the need for EU consent, or seek the EU’s agreement to allow us to sign up again to the Recast Regulation by way of international treaty, as Denmark has done.

Crosse says: ‘An early statement from the UK government that it intends to pursue such measures is essential to provide reassurance to commercial parties.

‘The longer the UK’s position remains unclear, the more likely it is that clients will start to vote with their feet by choosing alternative jurisdictions, courts and tribunals to resolve their commercial disputes.’

The survey uncovers concerns about disclosure—more than 70% of respondents think the current disclosure regime is ineffective in controlling the burden and costs involved in the process.

More than half the respondents say there is insufficient engagement between parties before the first case management conference.

And two-thirds of respondents oppose fixed costs for commercial cases below the value of £250,000. Crosse says: ‘Imposing cost budgeting or caps will not change the actual costs that have to be incurred, only their recoverability, and that in turn may result in meritorious claims not being pursued at all.’

Issue: 7756 / 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