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

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