header-logo header-logo

Litigators fear the Brexit factor

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

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