header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
11 November 2022 / Michael Zander KC
Issue: 8002 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , EU , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Taking back control over retained EU law

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
100244
Michael Zander KC reports on the Retained EU Law (Revocation & Reform) Bill
  • The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, in its current form, provides for ministers to revoke or modify non-statutory retained EU law.
  • It contains a sunset provision of 31 December 2023 (which can be postponed, but not beyond 23 June 2026).
  • There are concerns as to whether government departments will be able to consider 2,400 legislative provisions before the end of next year.

The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill had its second reading in the Commons on 25 October—the day that Rishi Sunak became prime minister, and the day too that Jacob Rees-Mogg, the minister in charge of the Bill, resigned.

‘Retained’ EU law (REUL) was the way Theresa May’s European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 dealt with EU law post-Brexit. It was to continue with statutory effect unless and until amended or repealed by legislation.

The current Bill provides for ministers to revoke or modify non-statutory REUL through secondary

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

Read All
NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Global finance group strengthened by returning partner in London

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: CPR tweak closes third-party disclosure gap
A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
NLJ this week: Court of Appeals wrestles with Mazur fallout
The long-running Mazur saga edged towards its finale as the Court of Appeal heard arguments on whether non-solicitors can ‘conduct litigation’. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School reports from a packed courtroom where 16 wigs watched Nick Bacon KC argue that Mr Justice Sheldon had failed to distinguish between ‘tasks and responsibilities’
NLJ this week: Appeal court reins in ‘wrong defendant’ switcheroo

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

NLJ this week: Driving test fraudsters steer towards jail
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
NLJ this week: Deepfakes demand data law muscle
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll