Brexit and the Future of English Law

The impact of Brexit on “bail-inable” liabilities under English law

A broad but very relevant context to regulation of smart contract platforms are the views presents by Reidenberg and, especially, Lessig. The technology under investigation might be considered as a radical example of ‘code being law’. In light of the ideological foundations of the technology, this might create threats for the effectiveness of legal systems. It will be shown that such threats are best considered through a comparative approach and illustrate why the French, German, Dutch and English legal systems provide a good basis for this comparison. With the English legal system being an integral part of this research, the impact of Brexit will be considered as well. Lastly, the chapter will touch upon the nature of the technology, and shown why it forces those who consider its legal implications, to look at both the law and technology in a different perspective. Rather than making a precise and concrete prediction on the outcome or the legal consequences of the technology, such predictions should be made on a spectrum.

Several years have passed since 29 March 2017, the date when the United 
\nKingdom (UK) triggered Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). This date has 
\nbecome well-known for paving the way to multiple legal and political issues, most of which 
\ndepend on the agreement setting the conditions for the future relations between the European 
\nUnion (EU) and the UK. In reference to the resolution of a credit institution established in the 
\nEU in a state of imminent crisis, Brexit might negatively affect its shareholders and 
\nbondholders who were called upon to contribute by absorbing losses and recapitalising the 
\nbank through the bail-in instrument. In particular, when the bail-in converts or writes down 
\nliabilities previously established under English law. To date, the EU legal framework for the 
\nresolution of credit institutions envisages a provision for the direct recognition of liabilities 
\ngoverned under any of the EU Member States’ law. This means that, due to Brexit, English law 
\nliabilities are no longer directly recognised at the EU level. However, the Bank Recovery and 
\nResolution Directive (BRRD), one of the pillars of the EU legislation relating to resolution, 
\nleaves to each EU Member State the duty to require financial entities to include “resolution proof” clauses in the contracts establishing such liabilities or, alternatively, to conclude a 
\nbinding agreement with the relevant third country. This creates issues concerning both the 
\nrecognition of English law liabilities established pre-BRRD and to post-BRRD liabilities not 
\ncompliant with the contractual requirement. By analysing the EU and UK legal frameworks, 
\nthis paper aims to address possible solutions to ease a future resolution procedure involving 
\nthe use of the bail-in instrument towards English law liabilities. The purpose is to ease both 
\nthe determination of the Minimum Requirement for own fund and Eligible Liabilities (MREL) 
\nand the resolution process for the relevant authority in charge of the resolution procedure, 
\nsince an orderly bail-in of those problematic liabilities could improve the effectiveness of the 
\ninstrument and the success of the whole resolution procedure.

The impact of Brexit on British law and democracy: four effects

Contact of the Common Law with the Civil Law in Japan Get access Kenzo Takayanagi Kenzo Takayanagi 1KenzoTakayanagi is Professor Emeritus of University of Tokyo, Member of the Japan Academy. This address was delivered at the Opening Session of the Fourth Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law, held at the University of Paris on August 2, 1954 Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The American Journal of Comparative Law, Volume 4, Issue 1, Winter 1955, Pages 60–69, https://doi.org/10.2307/837044 Published: 01 January 1955

This chapter introduces the reader to commercial law. It first considers the nature of commercial law by focusing on the definitions offered by Roy Goode, Tony Weir, and G. Samuel. It then examines the function of commercial law and the historical development of commercial law, tracing its roots to the lex mercatoria (law merchant) of the Middle Ages. It also discusses various sources of commercial law such as contracts and national legislation, along with the role of equity in commercial law, public law in the commercial arena, the philosophy and concepts of commercial law, and the codification of commercial law. Finally, it assesses the challenges for commercial law in the twenty-first century and the impact of Brexit on English commercial law.

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This new edition includes discussion of new legislation, including: Consumer Rights Act 2015; Insurance Act 2015; Modern Slavery Act 2015; Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015; Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010; Bribery Act 2010; Payment Services Regulations 2009. The text also has analysis of the latest developments in case law, including: Armstrong DLW GmbH v Winnington Networks Ltd and Devani v Republic of Kenya (on personal property law); Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc (on vicarious liability); Kelly v Fraser and Thanakharn Kasikorn Thai Chamkat (Mahachon) v Akai Holdings Ltd (on apparent authority); Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd and European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC (on agent's secret profits); Bailey v Angove's Pty Ltd (on irrevocable agencies); Cukurova Finance International v Alfa Telecom Turkey Ltd, Gray v G-T-P Group Ltd, and USA v Nolan (on the Financial Collateral Arrangements, No 2, Regulations). The book contains a new introductory section on the impact of Brexit on English commercial law. Insolvency coverage includes discussion of new out-of-court bankruptcy procedure, debt relief orders, and pre-pack administrations.

One of the most important problems arising from Brexit will concern labour law and the labour market – specifically the future development of labour law at the European level, the situation in domestic labour markets, and (as a consequence) changes in national legislations. At present, it is difficult to draw any precise conclusions regarding the impact of Brexit; however, it is possible to identify some of the more likely scenarios and consequences. There are substantial questions concerning: the future of EU law after Brexit and how Brexit will affect British labour law; the situation of multinational labour law institutions (e.g. European Works Councils), as well as the posting of workers. A lot depends on the final agreement between the UK and the EU. A close economic partnership may enforce the maintenance of the most important labour standards and mechanisms which are necessary to guarantee equilibrium between the partners.

This chapter introduces the reader to patents, how they work, and the laws governing them. It begins with a history of the patent system in the UK up to 1977. This is followed by a discussion of various justifications that have been proposed in support of the patent system, such as the natural rights of inventors to their work and the public benefits that flow from the grant of patent monopolies. It also considers the current regulatory regime governing the creation and use of patents in the UK and Europe, with particular reference to the European Patent Convention and the Patents Act 1977. Finally, the chapter discusses the impact of the European Commission on patent law and some of the international treaties that have influenced British patent law, including the Patent Cooperation Treaty, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), and the Convention on Biological Diversity. The chapter also speculates on the impact of Brexit on UK patent law.

Brexit as a hybrid phenomenon, that is, both legal and political, is the next stage in the debate on the place and role of the European Union (EU). The analysis of the impact of EU legislation on the shape of British constitutional law requires establishing the admissibility of reversing existing constitutional modifications. The author will argue that the age of globalisation and establishing legal network links, the participation of states in supernational organisations can result in irreversible modifications of the scope and meaning of constitutional law. In a simplified way, individual legal systems in a legal pluralism are “open”. The changes taking place are irreversible because they concern the foundation of competences as well as the system position of individual national authorities.

This chapter introduces the reader to patents, how they work, and the laws governing them. It begins with a history of the patent system in the UK up to 1977. This is followed by a discussion of various justifications that have been proposed in support of the patent system, such as the natural rights of inventors to their work and the public benefits that flow from the grant of patent monopolies. It also considers the current regulatory regime governing the creation and use of patents in the UK and Europe, with particular reference to the European Patent Convention and the Patents Act 1977. Finally, the chapter discusses the impact of the European Commission on patent law and some of the international treaties that have influenced British patent law, including the Patent Cooperation Treaty, the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), and the Convention on Biological Diversity. The chapter also speculates on the impact of Brexit on UK patent law.

Looking at the empirical data, English law and England as a forum are currently businesses’ prevailing choice for dispute resolution in international commercial transactions in Europe. This article analyses the factors determining businesses’ choice of contract law and forum in and the underlying mechanisms for businesses’ choices. These findings will be used to analyse what possible effects and consequences Brexit may have for the London commercial courts and the choice of English contract law. Will there be a switch of focus in approaching European commercial contracts and dispute resolution? Or will Brexit impact little on London’s prevailing position in the market for dispute resolution and the choice of English law in international commercial contracts?

Looking at the empirical data, English law and England as a forum are currently businesses’ prevailing choice for dispute resolution in international commercial transactions in Europe. This article analyses the factors determining businesses’ choice of contract law and forum in and the underlying mechanisms for businesses’ choices. These findings will be used to analyse what possible effects and consequences Brexit may have for the London commercial courts and the choice of English contract law. Will there be a switch of focus in approaching European commercial contracts and dispute resolution? Or will Brexit impact little on London’s prevailing position in the market for dispute resolution and the choice of English law in international commercial contracts?

This chapter considers the current state and future of commercial law. It starts with how the commercial law of England and Wales is the product of a long process of doctrinal development, by courts and Parliament. The structure of commercial law involves the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (SGA), the death of sales, and a new codification. The chapter also looks into the impact of Brexit and digitalisation on commercial law, which includes the emergence of gig economies, sharing economies, and circular economies. It cites how the radicalness of commercial actors' responses to the digital revolution is slowly being matched by legal thinking.

A memorial service was held at Victoria University to honour the life and work of Dr JamesWilliams, former Professor of English and New Zealand Law, Principal and then first Vice-Chancellor of the Victoria University of Wellington, who died suddenly at his home in Sydney on Monday, 12 January 1976.Mr Justice Cooke spoke of Dr Williams and his contribution to the law.