header-logo header-logo

03 July 2019 / Lucy Pert , Adam Jacobs
Issue: 7845 / Categories: Features , Commercial , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Brexit strategy

Need to Brexit a contract? Lucy Pert & Adam Jacobs provide a plan

  • The unique challenges posed by Brexit may leave parties with little choice but to litigate.
  • Since the 2016 referendum it has become increasingly common for parties to insert so-called ‘Brexit clauses’ into their contracts.

Brexit and particularly a ‘no-deal Brexit’, whereby the UK withdraws from the EU with no agreements in place regulating their future relationship, will affect many aspects of commercial life in Britain. In some circumstances, parties may well find that Brexit has impacted them in such a way that they are no longer able to perform their contractual obligations or that performance has become unduly onerous.

The legal mechanisms available under English law to parties who wish to discharge contractual rights without breach include material adverse change clauses, force majeure clauses and the doctrine of frustration. Although they operate in different ways, each is concerned with regulating the effects of unfavourable events on contractual performance.

Since the referendum in June 2016, some parties have also included Brexit-specific clauses within their agreements.

Material adverse change (MAC) clauses

MAC

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