header-logo header-logo

NLJ this week: Civil cross-border changes

26 February 2021
Issue: 7922 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , EU , Commercial
printer mail-detail
40726
Cross-border cases became more complex this year after the Brexit transition period ended without a deal on civil justice.

Consequently, the rules on establishing forum and jurisdiction have changed considerably, while access to the Brussels I (Recast) procedure for recognition and enforcement of judgments is no longer available.

Writing in NLJ this week, barristers Alexander Layton QC and Andrew Dinsmore study the post-Brexit landscape for jurisdiction and enforcement of foreign judgments. As well as considering the current position, they look ahead to future developments, such as potential accession to the Lugano Convention.

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
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
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 dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
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
back-to-top-scroll