header-logo header-logo

25 September 2019
Issue: 7857 / Categories: Legal News , Insurance / reinsurance , Brexit , EU , Discrimination
printer mail-detail

Insurers bemoan Brexit

Business ‘has lost patience’ with politicians whose ‘widespread ignorance’ about the impact Brexit could have has forced firms to prepare for ‘an abrupt, brutal and possibly chaotic’ departure, according to a report by insurance firm DAC Beachcroft.

Moreover, the prospect of politicians trying to negotiate detailed trade deals sector by sector over the next decade is ‘chilling’, according to the first of a three-part report by the firm on international insurance, ‘Informed Insurance 2019/20’, published last week.

Brexit has forced insurers and brokers to decide which clients and contracts to service from within the EU27 and where to base the operations that service that business, and they have proceeded on the assumption there will be no deal, the report says. Paris, Frankfurt and Malta have worked hard to attract business. Dublin has been a key destination, but its success in attracting financial businesses has made it hard to find accommodation.

Insurers are frustrated that much of the political debate has focused on the customs union, which only covers trade in goods (about 15% of the UK’s GDP) and not services. Dr Alexandra von Westernhagen, a specialist in EU competition law at DAC Beachcroft in London, says in the report: ‘No-one is really talking about remaining in the internal market, which would be the prerequisite for financial services to remain trading on the current basis with full passporting rights.’

The report also highlights that the 2018 employment tribunal statistics showed a 56% rise in UK pregnancy discrimination claims. DAC Beachcroft partner Louise Bloomfield said: ‘Employees appear to be much more confident in challenging what is seen as unacceptable behaviour in the workplace.’ 

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