header-logo header-logo

Disappearing rights post Brexit

11 August 2017
Issue: 7758 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-detail
03_tayleur_0

Significant exclusions from the Repeal Bill will affect the ability of individuals to enforce their existing EU rights post-Brexit, Trevor Tayleur, associate professor, the University of Law, writes in NLJ.

For example, ‘directly effective rights arising under EU directives will be excluded, unless they have been recognised by a court or tribunal before the date of the UK’s exit’. Similarly, the Charter of Fundamental Rights will be excluded, and the right to claim damages from the state under the Francovich principle will no longer apply post-Brexit.

Issue: 7758 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
back-to-top-scroll