header-logo header-logo

29 July 2016
Issue: 7709 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

London litigation post-Brexit

LSLA president: lawyers must act to avoid potential damage

Brexit-related uncertainties have the capacity to damage London’s status as a global centre for litigation, the president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association (LSLA) has said.

Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Crosse warns that other litigation hubs are already seeking to capitalise on the referendum result. Crosse says: “It is vital that as a profession we work to meet that head on.”

He says the reasons for London’s popularity remain “almost entirely intact”—a record of impartiality, its commercial judiciary, its legal talent and the fact its legal system is attuned to the realities of international commerce and finance. Moreover, English contract law is likely to continue to be widely used.

On choice of law, Crosse says the courts of EU member states will still be bound by choice of law in accordance with the Rome I and Rome II Regulations, and there is no reason why the UK should not adopt the same approach. This would “ensure continuity and certainty on which law will apply”.

Since the issues facing the London litigation market are unlikely to be high-priority for the government, however, it is “incumbent on lawyers (and the judiciary) to defend the UK’s position and our clients, by reaching a consensus on what needs to be done as soon as possible, and then presenting to the government any steps it needs to take”. For example, Crosse suggests that an early statement from the government that it intends to sign the Hague Convention as soon as the UK leaves the EU would ensure that “a fall-back position is established in choice of jurisdiction and the enforceability of English judgments in Europe” and would “reduce the risk of commercial parties switching dispute resolution clauses that would see future disputes heard in Paris, Frankfurt or Amsterdam”.

Issue: 7709 / 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