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

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