header-logo header-logo

20 February 2019
Issue: 7829 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Brexit impact on sanctions

‘Significant divergence’ on the horizon

The impact of Brexit on UK sanctions laws could be ‘far-reaching’ and lead to more red tape for businesses in the future, a leading trade lawyer has warned.

Hogan Lovells partner Aline Doussin, who heads the firm’s UK trade team, said this week that the UK government, post-Brexit, will be able to adopt sanctions ‘separately and independently’ from what the EU does.

‘Going forward, one cannot exclude a significant divergence in the future of UK sanctions from what the EU will do on its own,’ she said in an article posted on Hogan Lovells’ website.

‘This could lead to additional compliance burdens for businesses and financial institutions, which will have to deal with multiple and increasingly complex sanctions regimes.’

In the past few weeks, secondary legislation has been put before Parliament to replace references in sanctions laws to member states and the EU with references to the UK, and to replace references to the competent authorities with references to the UK Treasury. This means existing aspects of the financial sanctions regimes against countries such as Afghanistan, Burma, Iran and Venezuela will continue.

Consequently, Doussin said, ‘we do not expect any gaps in implementing existing sanctions regimes’. Post-Brexit, the UK will be required by international law to implement UN sanctions in UK domestic law and will carry over all EU sanctions at the time of departure.

After that, however, the UK will ‘have the powers to adopt other sanctions under the Sanctions Act, separately and independently from what the EU does,’ Doussin said.

‘In this, the impact of Brexit on UK sanctions laws is far-reaching.’

Prime Minister Theresa May flew to Brussels this week for further talks with the European Commission and heads of EU member states, hoping to secure concessions over the backstop. However, EU leaders continue to emphasise that they will not renegotiate the withdrawal agreement.

Issue: 7829 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
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
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll