header-logo header-logo

08 September 2017
Issue: 7760 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Brexit behind the headlines

nlj_7760_greene_0

Position papers restate mantra that CJEU will have no direct jurisdiction post Brexit

The government’s latest position papers on Brexit hint at retaining the status quo, according to Brexit commentator David Greene.

Press headlines suggested a ‘climbdown’ on the government’s position that the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Communities (CJEU) would end upon Brexit, following the publication in August of the UK’s position papers: ‘Providing a cross-border civil judicial co-operation framework’ and ‘Enforcement and dispute resolution’.

Writing this week, however, Greene, NLJ consultant editor, says: ‘Have they forced a government climbdown? Not quite: both papers restate the mantra that upon withdrawal the CJEU will no longer have direct jurisdiction in the UK.

‘That keeps the politicians happy, but, subject to that point, both papers smack of retaining, as far as possible, the status quo in the longer term.’

Greene says Brexit will have an impact at three main levels—government level, investor level and at the level of day to day business and citizens’ rights.

At government level, the UK position has been that the CJEU will have no continuing role although its pre-Brexit rulings will have binding effect. The EU’s position is that the CJEU must have a continuing role in the process as a result of the EU Treaties. However, ‘the new UK paper now talks of the possibility of voluntary references to the CJEU for interpretation only,’ says Greene. ‘It rejects the idea that the CJEU should be entitled to impose any remedies.’

On the rights of investors, whether small businesses or multinationals, Greene says ‘the likelihood is that they will be the subject of an ICSD arbitration process.

‘These arbitration processes remain highly contentious and bearing in mind the level of trade would need to be very well resourced, the UK does not foresee any role for the CJEU in that area. The EU position is unclear but the role of the CJEU gives rise to complexities in this area under the EU Treaties.’

On citizens’ cross-border rights, the EU and UK are at odds. The EU sees the CJEU having a role in determination of those on a permanent basis, says Greene. 

Issue: 7760 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Megan Bradbury

Clarke Willmott—Megan Bradbury

Corporate team welcomes paralegal in Southampton

Howard Kennedy—Paul Moran

Howard Kennedy—Paul Moran

London firm strengthens real estate team with partner appointment

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll