header-logo header-logo

28 June 2018
Issue: 7799 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-detail

‘No deal’ Brexit beckons

nlj_7799_news2_

Uncertainty abounds as Britain approaches EU exit deadline

Businesses are stepping up their contingency plans for a disorderly Brexit as key points remain unresolved two years after the EU Referendum, lawyers say.

The beleaguered EU Withdrawal Act gained Royal Assent this week, but the government has still not published its eagerly-anticipated White Paper on Brexit, and lawyers remain concerned about the lack of progress ahead of the UK’s exit on 29 March 2019.

Charles Brasted, partner in the Hogan Lovells Brexit Taskforce, said: ‘We are already seeing clients accelerate their own contingency plans, including for the possibility of a disorderly exit with no withdrawal agreement in place. Although 80% of the Withdrawal Agreement has been agreed, crucial aspects are unagreed and there will be no agreement unless it can all be resolved.’

Brasted said businesses in a whole range of sectors are hoping for ‘detailed and precise explanation of the government’s plans’ in the White Paper.

‘Both the UK and the EU are still aiming to agree the Withdrawal Agreement and a political declaration on the framework of the future relationship by October this year,’ he said. 

‘However, if significant progress is not made over the summer, this target may need to be revised. Some already believe agreement is not likely until late 2018 or even early 2019. The message from business continues to be “plan for the worst, hope for the best”. The focus on the former is certainly growing by the day.’

Writing in NLJ this week, David Greene, NLJ consultant editor and senior partner at Edwin Coe, said: ‘Industry clients and, now, law firms are planning for the worst, a crash out in nine months, with Airbus and BMW the latest to plead for early certainty. Other than a broad optimism that everyone will see sense, there is little on the horizon that suggests that a crash out is not a distinct possibility’.

Issue: 7799 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll