header-logo header-logo

31 October 2018
Issue: 7815 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Litigators fear the Brexit factor

istock-992064730

Ongoing uncertainty around Brexit perceived as a negative factor

London lawyers have urged the government to take urgent action to protect the Capital’s litigation crown.

Amid growing concern about London’s status as a pre-eminent litigation forum, more than a quarter of litigators taking part in the Litigation Trends survey, published this week, believe the Capital’s disputes market will decline in the next year. More than half (53%) predict a significant flight of work from the UK to other jurisdictions post Brexit. 80% want the government to take urgent, or very urgent, preventive action.

The survey, by the London Solicitors Litigation Association (LSLA) and NLJ, reveals a range of views about the cause of the fall in confidence. Some think Brexit will decrease UK litigation, others that it will both increase and decrease it but in different ways.

The impact of the state of the economy, and other factors, also divides opinion. Some respondents cite this as a reason for their lack of optimism in the future of the London disputes market, as the challenging market conditions bring a ‘pressure to decrease legal spend’. Others believe the state of the economy ‘will give rise to more disputes’ over the next year.

Julian Acratopulo, LSLA President and Clifford Chance partner, said: ‘The ongoing uncertainty around Brexit is clearly perceived as a negative factor and whilst that uncertainty remains, London litigators will continue to look anxiously at the implications for the market over the next few years. Clearly resolving the position in relation to the future recognition of the jurisdiction of London’s courts and its decisions so as to maintain something resembling the status quo, would go a long way in addressing market jitters.’

The survey also asked litigators about witness statements—about 60% believe procedural change is required, while one quarter of respondents believe applying the current procedure more rigorously in practice would resolve the problem. Suggested adjustments include limiting the length of witness statements to no more than two pages, relying more on evidence in chief, and eradicating or reducing duplication of evidence across pleadings, disclosure and witness statements.

Litigation trends: The Brexit zeitgeist

 

Issue: 7815 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll