header-logo header-logo

17 March 2021
Issue: 7925 / Categories: Legal News , EU , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Sanctions risk for UK

Northern Ireland could be placed in the awkward position of having to apply quotas, higher tariffs or other EU trade sanctions on goods arriving from the rest of the UK, the European Scrutiny Committee has warned.

The House of Commons committee has set out how this potential scenario could arise as the result of a World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute resolution mechanism currently being blocked.

In its 39th Report of Session 2019-21, published this week, the committee explains how the WTO body, known as ‘the Appellate Body’, cannot function because the term of office of one of its members has expired and the US is blocking the appointment of new members. This makes it difficult for WTO members such as the EU to resolve a breach of WTO rules. Therefore, the EU passed new rules, the Trade Enforcement Regulation, in December to get round this difficulty, and the rules came into force in February.

Under the regulation, the EU can take immediate ‘countermeasures’ such as quotas, increased customs duties or restrictions on services, if there has been a ruling in its favour by a WTO panel of independent trade exports. The EU and 23 other WTO members have also reached an arbitration agreement, which could provide an alternative means to resolving any dispute. However, the UK is not party to this agreement.

The upshot of the new EU rules, combined with the Northern Ireland Protocol is, according to the committee, that EU retaliatory tariffs would be payable on most, if not all, goods entering Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK because they would be considered at risk of onward movement to the EU even if they remained in Northern Ireland.

Separately, the EU launched legal action against the UK this week, alleging the UK decision to delay checks on goods shipped across the Irish Sea breaches the Brexit withdrawal agreement.  

Issue: 7925 / Categories: Legal News , EU , 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