header-logo header-logo

17 March 2017
Issue: 7739 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , EU , Litigation trends
printer mail-detail

Experts “cautiously optimistic” about litigation future post-Brexit

London is likely to retain its dominance as the forum of choice post-Brexit, despite EU lobbying that exiting the EU could mark the end for UK litigation dominance.

Speaking in a New Law Journal panel debate this week, Ed Crosse, partner at Simmons and Simmons LLP and president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, said he was optimistic but not complacent about the future.

“After an initial period of alarm among clients—and lawyers—about the Brexit effect on civil justice things have settled down. Clients choose to litigate in London for many reasons such as the quality of the judiciary, the procedures, the availability of disclosure, adverse costs orders, the integrity of the courts etc, but it’s vital that we improve certainty about the future.

“We need to be taking steps to reassure clients that they will be able to resolve their disputes as they’ve decided. Clients want to be sure that if they have an exclusive jurisdiction clause they’ll be able to enforce it widely.”

Fellow panel member Hugh Mercer QC, Essex Court Chambers and Chairman of the Bar Council’s Brexit Working Group, said it was important not to overstate how much influence Brexit would have on London as a financial centre because of the infrastructure and services, and the mass of people here who can service it. However, he emphasised that the rule of law depended on legal certainty.

“You don’t start litigation unless you’re going to be able to enforce. At the moment we have a unique situation in the world whereby we’re plugged into the EU system of enforcing judgments, the New York Convention for Arbitration and we also have reciprocal enforcement with the Commonwealth countries. Our judgments are uniquely transportable around the world and it’s important that we try to maintain that post-Brexit.”

Mercer felt that a “good agreement on jurisdiction and judgments was feasible” and was moderately optimistic that we will get one: “The Brussels Regulation in global terms is the gold standard—the status quo is the best there is and is what we should work towards.”

David Greene, senior partner at Edwin Coe LLP and consultant editor on New Law Journal quizzed the panel about what the litigation landscape will be like for practitioners and clients as Brexit becomes a reality. The Brexit master class, part of NLJ’s exclusive webinar series, is available to download here.

Issue: 7739 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , EU , Litigation trends
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll