header-logo header-logo

02 December 2016 / Jonathan Harris KC
Issue: 7725 / Categories: Features , Brexit , Procedure & practice , EU , Profession
printer mail-detail

Brexit & cross-border dispute resolution

Will the English courts still be top choice post-Brexit, asks Jonathan Harris QC

  • It is unlikely that the reputation and attractiveness of litigating in the English courts will disappear post-Brexit.

Amid the myriad legal issues and uncertainties generated by Brexit, a key question is how the litigation market in England, and the supremacy that London enjoys as a centre for cross-border dispute resolution, might be affected. The recent government announcement that EU laws will, wherever possible, be enacted into domestic law pending further review might assuage that uncertainty, at least in the medium term. That exercise is not, however, as straightforward as it might appear, particularly where reciprocity with member states is required to render EU laws effective.

The landscape of English civil litigation is unrecognisable from that which existed in 1972 prior to the UK joining the then-EEC. In large measure, there is now a set of harmonised EU rules for cross-border dispute resolution. For instance, there are harmonised rules on jurisdiction, enforcement of judgments, choice of law for contractual and non-contractual obligations, cross-border insolvency, service of documents

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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll