header-logo header-logo

23 August 2017
Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-detail

UK sets Brexit goal of reciprocal ‘civil judicial cooperation’

Lawyers have given a cautious welcome to the government’s Brexit position paper calling for a cross-border civil judicial cooperation framework.

Under current reciprocal arrangements, a decision made by a court in the UK can be enforced in other EU Member States, enabling citizens to enforce orders made by the civil and family courts on commerce, trade and family matters such as child custody and maintenance.

After Brexit, however, the UK will no longer be part of this arrangement with EU Member States.

The government sets out why it ‘will seek to agree new close and comprehensive arrangements for civil judicial cooperation with the EU,’ in its paper published this week, Providing a cross-border civil judicial cooperation framework—a future partnership paper.

It says it will ‘seek an agreement with the EU that allows for close and comprehensive cross-border civil judicial cooperation on a reciprocal basis, which reflects closely the substantive principles of cooperation under the current EU framework.

‘As we legislate for our withdrawal from the EU, it is also our intention to incorporate into domestic law the Rome I and II instruments on choice of law and applicable law in contractual and non-contractual matters. This will provide a coherent legal framework for UK and EU businesses to trade and invest with confidence across borders and support the protection of individuals’ and family rights in cross-border situations.’

Andrew Langdon QC, Chair of the Bar Council, said: ‘On the face of it, the government’s position includes sensible and sound proposals and shows that the government has been in listening mode when talking to the Bar Council and others on this crucial topic.

‘We are encouraged by the fact the government sees value in preserving much of what is already in place in existing arrangements between the UK and the EU, as well as the UK’s relationships internationally and third parties. However, the devil will be in the detail.’

Family lawyers group Resolution said close cooperation with the EU on family law matters was a key recommendation of the Justice Select Committee’s enquiry last year, to which it gave evidence.

Daniel Eames, chair of Resolution’s International Committee, said: ‘Cross border family law for intra EU-UK cases—whether divorce, children or financial—requires reciprocity. Without reciprocal rules, there can be no legal certainty in treatment with all the ensuing complications, delays and potential costs for families and children or local authorities undertaking their child protection function.

‘These issues may not make headline news, but for families affected by a cross-border dispute, it can be deeply distressing. For their sake, the more clarity on what the situation will be after March 2019, the better.’

Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
The Environment Agency can prosecute offences beyond environmental legislation where proceedings support its statutory functions, the Divisional Court has confirmed
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
back-to-top-scroll