header-logo header-logo

28 November 2018
Issue: 7819 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Brexit uncertainty persists

Bar Council issues advisory paper on no deal implications

Theresa May flew to Scotland this week to try to shore up support for the Brexit deal before an almost certainly stormy vote in the House of Commons next month.

With both main political parties divided and confused, it remains unclear whether a future Britain will be Norway, Canada, Singapore or just poorer, while many in the pro-EU camp are clinging to the possibility of a second referendum.

Last week, city lawyers gave a broadly positive response to the 585-page draft withdrawal agreement itself.

Meanwhile, the Bar Council has followed the Law Society in issuing advice to its members on what to do in the event of a no deal Brexit. It warned barristers that, even if the prime minister’s plan is accepted by Parliament, the shape of any agreement on professional services is ‘extremely uncertain’.

Moreover, a no deal could impact on those working in family, personal injury and even criminal cases where any of the key individuals such as victims and witnesses are in an EU member state.

The paper also explains that although the intention of the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is to import EU law wholesale into UK law on Brexit day, amendments may be made by statutory instrument. It states that the ‘legislative structure inevitably gives rise to widespread uncertainty as to the likely amendments and repeals that will be made in a no deal situation.

‘In addition, although the message received from [government] is “no policy change”, some changes are inevitable as a result of no longer being inside the EU. Moreover, the speed and extent of future divergence is difficult to predict and is likely to vary from one policy area to another. There would also be significant challenges in making certain regimes work effectively in the absence of reciprocity from other member states and/or the EU.’  

Issue: 7819 / 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