header-logo header-logo

12 November 2018
Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-detail

No-deal Brexit for solicitors

Increasing fear of a no-deal Brexit has led the Law Society to issue a series of papers guiding solicitors on steps they can take to minimise the risks in family law, data and civil disputes.

The series launched last week with four papers on providing legal services in the EU, civil and commercial disputes, data and family law.

For example, the Brussels II Regulation helps families resolve disputes about divorce and the custody of children where they involve parties in more than one EU state. Under the regulation, EU courts automatically recognise judgments delivered in other EU states on matrimonial and parental responsibility.

However, Brussels II will no longer apply to the UK once we leave the EU. Neither will the Maintenance Regulation, which helps ensure the payment of maintenance in cross border situations.

On financial disputes between businesses and individuals, Law Society president Christina Blacklaws said: ‘There are currently no international conventions that can be used to help and the result is that the enforcement of these judgments will depend on the national law or the possibility of relying on old bilateral conventions from the 1920s or 1930s.

‘Furthermore, it’s not clear, for example, what will happen with ongoing cases if we exit the EU without a deal. Our presumption is that as there is no reciprocity and no agreement on ongoing cases, even the judgments from these cases are not enforceable under the reciprocal EU rules. 

‘And while, at the moment, court judgments in Britain are recognised in EU countries and vice versa, once we leave there is a risk parallel cases may be taken up in multiple jurisdictions. Not to mention that the parties will need two legal teams to run these cases as the qualified lawyers are no longer able to represent their clients in each other’s jurisdictions.  

'This will push the cost of litigation beyond the reach of many small and medium-sized businesses.’

Blacklaws added: ‘What seems certain is that anything cross border is likely to be more expensive and more complex—our members and the general public need to be ready for that.’

As Brexit negotiations continued this week, media outlets reported that it was looking increasingly unlikely a draft deal would be agreed this month.

Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
back-to-top-scroll