header-logo header-logo

Commercial courts break records

28 April 2021
Issue: 7930 / Categories: Legal News , Commercial , Brexit
printer mail-detail
47% more judgments handed down than previous year

London’s commercial courts have displayed robust health through the challenges of COVID-19 and Brexit, working through a record-breaking caseload in the 12 months up to 30 March.

According to the annual Commercial Court Report by Portland Communications, published this week, the courts handed down more judgments (292 in total, 47% more than the previous year), with more nationalities represented (75) and litigants appearing (1,336) than ever before. This meant the courts recovered from a dip in activity last year and re-established a six-year-long trend for growth.

Nine out of ten of the judgments were for hearings held during these 12 months, showing the increase was not due to a backlog of cases.

Half of the litigants were from outside the UK. The decline in proportion of EU27 litigants since Brexit has continued, reaching a six-year low of only 11.5% of the total.

The report notes: ‘While this decline may be attributed to the fallout from Brexit, it also corresponds with the establishment of international commercial courts across the EU, including in France, Germany and the Netherlands.

‘With the added uncertainties around enforcement, there is perhaps a growing risk that European litigants may choose to settle their disputes closer to home.’

However, the decrease in EU litigants was offset by an increase in other foreign litigants, with Russia providing the highest number, followed by the US (the numbers from the US rose by 75%). Russian litigants most frequently found themselves in court against Ukrainian opponents.

Writing in the report, Professor Alex Mills of UCL points out that judgments in proceedings brought before 1 January 2021 continue to benefit from EU recognition and enforcement regimes; therefore it is too soon to tell whether potential difficulties in enforcing English judgments might lead parties to litigate elsewhere or to choose arbitration instead.

Meanwhile, other courts—most notably the criminal and family courts—continue to suffer lengthy backlogs and delays. Last week, ministers pledged to remove the limit on the number of judicial sitting days to tackle the backlog. Welcoming the decision, Bar Council chair Derek Sweeting QC called for sufficient staff and resources to be provided to support the rise in cases.

Issue: 7930 / Categories: Legal News , Commercial , 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