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Under the Bill, currently at committee stage, all retained EU law would be repealed on 31 December 2023, unless incorporated into UK domestic law.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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll