header-logo header-logo

09 June 2016
Issue: 7702 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Planning for Brexit

Lawyers prepare for referendum vote on 23 June

Lawyers are focused on the implications of Brexit, with two weeks left before the UK goes to the polls.

Larger firms have created Brexit teams and issued briefings to advise clients on the consequences of leaving the UK.

Berwin Leighton Paisner, for example, is advising its clients to ensure contracts are “future-proofed” to provide for the implications of a Brexit, and to plan for negative consequences and opportunities.

One major repercussion for businesses would be the impact on data privacy. These are “tumultuous” times for businesses that need to transfer electronic data, according to Lauren Grest, legal researcher, Kroll Ontrack, and Mark Surguy, partner at Weightmans. The proposed EU-US Privacy Shield—the replacement for the Safe Harbor agreement—is still being debated, while the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is due to take effect in 2018.

Writing in NLJ this week, Grest and Surguy spell out the key questions: what legislative regime would govern the UK, and how would the UK do business with the EU if the UK does not have to comply with the GDPR?

While it would be a relief for many businesses not to have to comply with the “onerous” GDPR, which requires companies to nominate a compliance officer, they would discover a “whole new web of red tape” once new agreements were negotiated. The UK would have to be declared a “safe area” therefore comply with GDPR requirements. It could end up in the same boat as the US, which is still struggling to negotiate the EU-US Privacy Shield. The combined power of 27 countries “has formidable leverage in negotiations”, Grest and Surguy say, and a post-Brexit UK could end up subject to GDPR just as much as if it had never left.

Issue: 7702 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

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