header-logo header-logo

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

Limits of the Great Repeal Bill

The current reciprocal rules for enforcing civil justice across the EU cannot be replicated by the Great Repeal Bill, a committee of Peers has found.

In a report published this week, Brexit: justice for families, individuals and businesses?, the House of Lords EU Justice Sub-Committee gave a dire warning about access to justice across the EU for families and businesses post-Brexit. 

The committee found that the current system for civil justice cooperation across the EU member states works well, with both family and commercial disputes that cross borders currently settled by judgments that are enforceable across the EU. However, Brexit will usher in several changes.

The committee found that, unless the current system of “mutual recognition” of judgments across the EU is duplicated, not only will the advantages be lost, but there will be real hardship for families and businesses, who could be left subject to national rules across 27 other member states.

It argued that alternatives to the existing framework of civil justice cooperation must be in place before the UK withdraws from the EU. Falling back on common law and earlier international agreements would condemn UK citizens to uncertainty and diminished access to justice, it said.

Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws, the committee’s chair, said: “Unless the government can agree a replacement of the existing rules on mutual recognition of judgments, there will be great uncertainty over access to justice for families, businesses and individuals.

“The committee heard clear and conclusive evidence that there is no means by which the reciprocal rules currently in place can be replicated in the Great Repeal Bill. Domestic legislation can’t bind the other 27 member states.

“We therefore call on the government to secure adequate alternative arrangements, whether as part of a withdrawal agreement or a transitional deal.”

Issue: 7739 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , EU
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