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

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