header-logo header-logo

06 October 2016
Issue: 7717 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

The great EU repeal

Prime minister unveils plans to set the Brexit ball in motion

Prime Minister Theresa May’s Great Repeal Bill (GRB) may not be “as simple as suggested”, lawyers have warned.

The Bill, announced last week, will repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and convert EU laws into UK law, allowing for reforms to be considered at leisure.

Charles Brasted, partner at Hogan Lovells, said: “This suggests that much regulation will remain the same immediately post-Brexit, save for some headline changes, and Parliament will have a formidable legislative or de-legislative task ahead of it.

“It also may not be as simple as suggested to transpose all relevant EU law, given the complex interrelationship between different types of EU legislation and regulation and domestic laws.”

Whatever happens, the UK is now likely to be trading on the basis of World Trade Organisation terms, potentially with a bespoke trade deal with the EU in certain areas of trade, once the post-Art 50 two-year negotiation ends, says Pinsent Masons partner Guy Lougher.

Meanwhile, the judicial review into the government’s authority to trigger Art 50 without Parliamentary approval is due to begin next week before the Lord Chief Justice and Master of the Rolls. Any appeal will leapfrog to the Supreme Court for hearing in early December. The case raises constitutional questions relating to the right of the Crown to use Royal Prerogative.

At the Conservative Party conference last week, May criticised the case as “anti-democratic”. However, David Greene, senior partner at Edwin Coe and NLJ consultant editor, who is acting in the case, hit back: “To the contrary, it is all about parliamentary democracy and it is the applicants who say that the government must bow to our parliamentary democracy.”

Issue: 7717 / Categories: Legal News
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
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