header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
05 August 2016 / Tim Malloch
Issue: 7711 / Categories: Features , Brexit , EU
printer mail-detail

A Chinese takeaway (Pt 4)

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7696_malloch_1

Why have the dynamics of the Hinkley Point C negotiation changed since the EU referendum, asks Tim Malloch
    • Unless and until the UK specifically rules out joining the EEA as part of the Brexit process it would be prudent to assume that the existing EU rules on state aid will continue to apply to the UK. Accordingly, Brexit does not mean saying auf wiedersehen to the Austrian state aid challenge to HPC or indeed to similar state aid challenges to any future nuclear projects in the UK.

    Before the EU referendum result, the UK government appeared to be driving the pace of the Hinkley Point C (HPC) negotiations. At the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee (the ECCSC) hearing on 24 May 2016 Andrea Leadsom, then a Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) energy minister, stated that the UK government wanted EDF to take a final investment decision as soon as possible (see Question 211 Oral evidence: UK New Nuclear: Status Update, HC 176, 24 May 2016).

    Following

    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

    Read All
    Sponsored by
    Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

    Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

    Commercial firm strengthens real estate disputes team with associate hire

    Switalskis—three appointments

    Switalskis—three appointments

    Firm appoints three directors to board

    Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

    Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

    Six promoted to partner and one to legal director across UK and Ireland offices

    NEWS
    Read All
    NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

    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

    NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
    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
    NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
    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
    NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
    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
    NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
    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
    Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
    back-to-top-scroll