header-logo header-logo

Shaky foundations?

26 May 2017 / Martin Burns
Issue: 7747 / Categories: Features , Brexit , EU , Property
printer mail-detail

EU law underpins the provision of dispute resolution to resolve property & construction disputes, says Martin Burns. So what will happen post-Brexit?

An inevitable consequence of the decision by the UK to leave the EU is uncertainty. This is particularly so for those of us who are involved in property and construction.

Brexit compels the industry to examine the adequacy of regulatory systems, and the extent to which some EU law will stay and some is swept away. It obliges us to explore the modifications which will be required, or not, across all areas, including: investment, procurement, financing, and sourcing labour and materials.

One area where it is unclear as to how Brexit will impact is in the way the UK property and construction sector manages conflict and resolves disputes. EU law underpins the provision, operation and enforcement of different forms of dispute resolution. When that law ceases to apply in the UK, the nature of the legal regime that replaces it is clearer in some areas than in others.

Ultimately, repercussions for dispute resolution

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll