header-logo header-logo

28 June 2017
Issue: 7752 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Lawyers hit out at flaws in PM’s plans for EU nationals

Lawyers have hit out at flaws in the Prime Minister’s immigration status pledge to EU nationals.

Prime Minister Theresa May has said EU citizens who arrived in the UK before the Article 50 trigger date of 29 March 2017 will be given similar rights to UK citizens. Those arriving after that date can stay for two years then apply for a work permit.

However, Nick Rollason, immigration law partner at Kingsley Napley, said the proposal would anger many EU nationals, and created uncertainty. ‘Since the referendum, over 100,000 EU nationals and their family members have applied for, and obtained, EU Permanent Residence status,’ he said.

‘Making them re-apply is a waste, not only of their time and money, but also of UK public funds and of Home Office resources.’

The Bar Council, which published the third edition of its Brexit Papers last week, warned the European Court of Justice (CJEU) could be ‘a major stumbling block in negotiations’.

Hugh Mercer QC, chairman of the Bar’s Brexit Working Group, said: ‘Apart from agreeing the categories of citizens who have acquired these rights, the big question around these “acquired rights” is; how will UK and EU citizens enforce the terms of that deal if they run in to difficulties with national authorities, or if the UK and other states disagree over the operation of the new rules?

‘The answer may be to create a mechanism for obtaining an Advisory Opinion in disputes before UK courts or for UK courts to have due regard to CJEU rulings, and an obligation of consistent interpretation to ensure equality, legal certainty and the maintenance of the quality of the rights.’

 

Issue: 7752 / 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
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