header-logo header-logo

01 September 2017
Issue: 7759 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Civil judicial co-operation post Brexit

Family and civil lawyers have welcomed government calls for a cross-border civil judicial co-operation framework post Brexit

Under current reciprocal arrangements, a decision made by a court in the UK can be enforced in other EU Member States, enabling citizens to enforce orders made by the civil and family courts on commerce, trade and family matters such as child custody and maintenance.

After Brexit, the UK will no longer be part of this arrangement with EU Member States. Lawyers had warned of the uncertainties that families and businesses with international links might face.

However, the government said last week that it will ‘seek to agree new close and comprehensive arrangements for civil judicial cooperation with the EU,’ in its position paper, Providing a cross-border civil judicial cooperation framework.

Andrew Langdon QC, Chair of the Bar Council, said the position paper ‘shows that the government has been in listening mode when talking to the Bar Council and others on this crucial topic... However, the devil will be in the detail’.

Daniel Eames, chair of family lawyers group Resolution’s International Committee, said: ‘Cross border family law for intra EU-UK cases—whether divorce, children or financial—requires reciprocity.

‘Without reciprocal rules, there can be no legal certainty in treatment with all the ensuing complications, delays and potential costs for families and children or local authorities undertaking their child protection function.’

Ed Crosse, partner, Simmons & Simmons, said the paper confirms the UK government’s commitment to re-sign the 2005 Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. ‘As so many commercial agreements contain exclusive jurisdiction clauses, this is an important statement from the UK government, which should provide comfort to commercial parties,’ he said.

Issue: 7759 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll