header-logo header-logo

Future of retained EU law in doubt beyond 2023

09 November 2022
Issue: 8002 / Categories: Legal News , EU , Brexit
printer mail-detail
The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill could have a devastating impact on legal certainty in the UK, lawyers have warned.

Under the Bill, currently at committee stage, all retained EU law would be repealed on 31 December 2023, unless incorporated into UK domestic law.

At stake are thousands of retained EU laws (direct EU legislation and UK secondary legislation) affecting employment, transport, data protection, agriculture, environmental and consumer protections, and more—retained under former prime minister Theresa May’s EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 following the UK’s departure from the EU. The retained laws include provisions on, for example, hazardous substances, building regulations, annual leave, equal pay, pregnancy rights, rest breaks and parental leave.

The Bill provides that the sunset date, currently the end of 2023, can be delayed until 23 June 2026 for specified pieces of legislation.

Law Society president Lubna Shuja (pictured) said the Bill ‘raises uncomfortable questions for parliamentary sovereignty, legal certainty, and the rule of law.

‘If the Bill passes in its present form, businesses cannot have any certainty about the legal and regulatory landscape beyond 2023. This would have a chilling effect on investment decisions, damage the UK’s standing as an international business hub and the global reputation of English law for certainty and predictability.

‘The Law Society therefore calls on the government to remove the arbitrary and unrealistic 2023 deadline in the sunset clause, to allow for a measured and thorough review of affected laws.’

The Bill also extends the Supreme Court’s power to depart from retained EU case law to other UK courts.

Shuja said this could result in different UK courts coming to ‘different, conflicting decisions’, and highlighted that ‘the legal test the Supreme Court uses to depart from its own rulings is necessarily high, uncodified and flexible. It reinforces legal clarity and certainty’.

According to Shoosmiths partner Charles Arrand and associate Hannah Howard, the Bill has the potential ‘to affect most, if not all, businesses in the UK’.

Michael Zander KC has written in NLJ this week on the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill—read his article here.

Issue: 8002 / Categories: Legal News , EU , 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