header-logo header-logo

25 February 2016
Issue: 7688 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , EU , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

EU: who’s in and who’s out?

The Justice Secretary set his hat against the Prime Minister last week as the cabinet split over the EU vote.

With 23 June confirmed as the EU referendum date, the scene is set for a clash of titans: Eurosceptic Michael Gove versus pro-EU David Cameron.

Gove explained in a statement that: “The EU tries to standardise and regulate rather than encourage diversity and innovation.”

He said: “Rules like the EU clinical trials directive have slowed down the creation of new drugs to cure terrible diseases and European Court of Justice judgments on data protection issues hobble the growth of internet companies.”

Gove’s stance puts him at odds not only with the PM but also large parts of the legal profession.

About 300 lawyers have formed a campaign group, Lawyers–In for Britain, to support Britain’s membership of the EU. The group has held several events, and is due to launch a report later this month setting out its case.

Separately, City firms are urging clients to consider the implications of a Brexit. A recent survey commissioned by Herbert Smith Freehills found that, of 200 UK-based businesses, most of the companies’ boards of directors have not yet formally considered the impact of a Brexit on their activities.

 

Issue: 7688 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , EU , Constitutional law
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