header-logo header-logo

10 December 2020
Issue: 7914 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , EU
printer mail-detail

U-turn on international law breach threat

‘Eleventh hour change of heart’ on Internal Market Bill welcomed

Downing Street has retreated on plans to enact legislation that would enable the UK to breach international law.

Just 24 hours before, MPs had rejected the House of Lords’ 22 amendments to the Internal Market Bill, including Peers’ removal of the clauses in Part V that would permit a breach of international law by allowing the government to override parts of the UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement as well as ouster clauses to prevent recourse to the courts.

On the next day, however, the Cabinet Office issued a joint statement by the co-chairs of the EU-UK Joint Committee―European Commission Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič and the UK Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Michael Gove―that an agreement in principle had been reached. It stated that in exchange for arrangements on border checks on goods ‘not at risk’ of entering the EU, ‘the UK will withdraw clauses 44, 45 and 47 of the [Bill], and not introduce any similar provisions in the Taxation Bill’.

Amanda Pinto QC, chair of the Bar Council said: ‘We are very pleased that the government has pulled back from its plans to breach international law, which flew in the face of a principle that is central to the very fabric of our society.

‘This U-turn should not have been necessary. We are disappointed that the initiative was ever adopted, but this course of action should demonstrate to all―including our potential trade partners―that Britain holds itself to the rule of law.

‘We hope that any damage to our reputation and global position that may already have been done, is limited.’

Law Society president David Greene said: ‘Proposing to breach an agreement just entered into, breaking international law, even if in a “specific and limited way” was shocking so we welcome this eleventh hour change of heart. Had this step not been taken the reputation of the jurisdiction would have suffered greatly.’

Meanwhile, the prime minister warned the chances of securing a UK-EU trade deal on goods were ‘looking very, very difficult’. He flew to Brussels on Wednesday of this week for face-to-face meetings with Ursula von der Leyen, the Commission president, which ended in an agreement for talks to continue. There are three main sticking points: fishing rights, competition rules and enforcement.

Issue: 7914 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , EU
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
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
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
back-to-top-scroll