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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The next generation is inheriting more than assets—it is inheriting complexity. Writing in NLJ this week, experts from Penningtons Manches Cooper chart how global mobility, blended families and evolving values are reshaping private wealth advice
Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming sport, from recruitment and training to officiating and fan engagement. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dr Ian Blackshaw of Valloni Attorneys at Law explains how AI now influences everything from injury prevention to tactical decisions, with clubs using tools such as ‘TacticAI’ to gain competitive edges
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll