header-logo header-logo

28 November 2017
Categories: Legal News , Brexit , Budgeting
printer mail-detail

Disclosure reform important post-Brexit

The rules on disclosure must be reformed if Britain is to retain its global status as a legal hub post-Brexit, litigators say.

Our civil courts are facing increased competition from courts and tribunals overseas, ‘who regard the Brexit vote as “Christmas come early”,’ Ed Crosse, President of the London Solicitors Litigation Association (LSLA) told lawyers at the LSLA annual dinner last week.

He emphasised that reform of the Civil Procedure Rules, and the disclosure regime in particular, are central to maintaining the world-leading status of courts in England and Wales.

Earlier this month, a working group of senior judges and practitioners, including Crosse, published a draft Practice Direction on disclosure in the business and property courts—interested parties have until 28 February 2018 to comment on it.

‘The working group started out with the modest intention of putting Part 31 [of the Civil Procedure Rules] into a wind tunnel, to see which bits could be stripped away to achieve greater speed and efficiency, but in fact, what we ended up doing was completely re-writing the rule.

‘The proposed rules will, if accompanied by a change in culture and behaviours by the profession and judiciary, materially contribute to a more efficient and effective administration of civil justice. That, in turn, may help to mitigate some of the challenges that our civil justice system is now facing as a result of Brexit and, in particular, increased competition from courts and tribunals overseas.’

Speaking at the launch of the working group’s draft Practice Direction, Sir Terence Etherton, Master of the Rolls, said: ‘Disclosure is one of the key procedural stages in most evidence-based claims.

‘It is imperative that our disclosure system is, and is seen to be, highly efficient and flexible, reflecting developments in technology. Having effective and proportionate rules for disclosure is a key attraction of English law and English dispute resolution in international markets.’   

Categories: Legal News , Brexit , Budgeting
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll