header-logo header-logo

26 July 2019 / Christian Wisskirchen
Categories: Opinion , Profession , Brexit , EU
printer mail-detail

International special: Open for business

Christian Wisskirchen explains why doing legal business in the UK post-Brexit makes sense

Since the EU Referendum in the UK three years ago, many law firms and in-house counsel around the world have been asking themselves whether it may be advisable for their clients to continue using English law in their international contracts and whether to continue to resolve their disputes in our jurisdiction.

Understandably, there has been significant marketing activity, notably by legal stakeholders in leading EU jurisdictions, advising international clients to move away from the use of English law and jurisdiction because of the perceived ‘uncertainty’ arising from Brexit. Let me be crystal clear: whereas there exists uncertainty in relation to economic and regulatory EU-UK cross-border issues, there is no uncertainty whatsoever in relation to the use and the usefulness of English law and dispute resolution in the English Courts. EU law simply does not apply to commercial contracts and to commercial dispute resolution.

"The Bar has successfully positioned itself in a turnkey role to access English and international
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
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
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
back-to-top-scroll