header-logo header-logo

UK’s hopes fade for Lugano

14 April 2021
Issue: 7928 / Categories: Legal News , EU , Brexit , Commercial
printer mail-detail
Lawyers' hopes for the Lugano Convention crumbled to disappointment this week, amid reports the European Commission is opposed to the UK's accession.

Anticipation of a positive result for the UK was rising ahead of a meeting this week between the Commission and member states. According to the FT, however, the Commission has said it will not back the UK’s application to join.

A final decision, expected in the next few weeks, requires the unanimous approval of all member states.

The 2007 Convention clarifies which national courts have jurisdiction in cross-border civil and commercial disputes and ensures judgments are enforceable across borders. It means consumers and suppliers can seek redress in their local court rather than raising multiple cases in different jurisdictions.

David Greene, senior partner, Edwin Coe, said: ‘This was predicted, so it was a surprise when the indications earlier this week were to the contrary.

‘Unfortunately, some within the EU have seen Lugano as an instrument in the competition for global dispute resolution and this seems to have influenced events. In fact, it’s a vital instrument for businesses of all sizes in the EU and UK and for consumers and citizens. All will lose out.

‘In the event, however, delay in or no accession will not affect London as a global legal centre in the long run. To the contrary the consequent development of English law may indeed enhance the jurisdiction.’

Sara Chisholm-Batten, partner at Michelmores, said the news was ‘a real setback’ for UK businesses and individuals.

‘If the UK is accepted into Lugano, it would result in judgments being recognised and enforced across UK and EU/EFTA borders much more swiftly and cost effectively―which would be welcome news for UK businesses trading in those areas―and EU businesses trading in the UK,’ she said.

Lauren Cormack, associate at Russell-Cooke, said: ‘Cross-border disputes may become difficult to resolve efficiently.

‘This may create a barrier preventing access to justice for those who cannot meet the increased costs of what will be much more complex litigation. This will be felt most acutely by individuals, consumers and small and medium-sized enterprises involved in cross-border trade and transactions.’

Issue: 7928 / Categories: Legal News , EU , Brexit , Commercial
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll