header-logo header-logo

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

Brexit fears on litigation

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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll