header-logo header-logo

22 March 2017
Issue: 7739 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , EU
printer mail-detail

Limits of the Great Repeal Bill

The current reciprocal rules for enforcing civil justice across the EU cannot be replicated by the Great Repeal Bill, a committee of Peers has found.

In a report published this week, Brexit: justice for families, individuals and businesses?, the House of Lords EU Justice Sub-Committee gave a dire warning about access to justice across the EU for families and businesses post-Brexit. 

The committee found that the current system for civil justice cooperation across the EU member states works well, with both family and commercial disputes that cross borders currently settled by judgments that are enforceable across the EU. However, Brexit will usher in several changes.

The committee found that, unless the current system of “mutual recognition” of judgments across the EU is duplicated, not only will the advantages be lost, but there will be real hardship for families and businesses, who could be left subject to national rules across 27 other member states.

It argued that alternatives to the existing framework of civil justice cooperation must be in place before the UK withdraws from the EU. Falling back on common law and earlier international agreements would condemn UK citizens to uncertainty and diminished access to justice, it said.

Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws, the committee’s chair, said: “Unless the government can agree a replacement of the existing rules on mutual recognition of judgments, there will be great uncertainty over access to justice for families, businesses and individuals.

“The committee heard clear and conclusive evidence that there is no means by which the reciprocal rules currently in place can be replicated in the Great Repeal Bill. Domestic legislation can’t bind the other 27 member states.

“We therefore call on the government to secure adequate alternative arrangements, whether as part of a withdrawal agreement or a transitional deal.”

Issue: 7739 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , EU
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