Paul Marmor spoke about his involvement in developing Sherrards’ international persona, passing on the benefit of his experiences to an audience predominantly from the legal profession, looking to expand their international footprint.

In particular, Paul used the international webinar to speak about our work with an international alliance (Alliott Global Alliance) and our connectivity with other first-class law firms through the International Bar Association and American Bar Association, as well as working alongside The Law Society’s International Division and the Department for International Trade, including becoming part of the UK investment support directory hosted by the DIT.

Marco Cillario, International Policy Manager of The Law Society commented, “We are ready and willing to shout about the legal profession and to help our members, whether to improve access to key markets, facilitate introductions to networking opportunities with contacts across the world, or to create the right environment to do so ”.

Paul Marmor of Sherrards comments, “It’s been quite a journey for the firm, but in 20 years we have helped our clients and contacts with their increasing needs overseas, as well as the burgeoning demand for use of the UK courts by foreign parties.  I have no doubt that our legal profession is supported by some brilliant institutions, whether it be the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Business and Trade or The Law Society’s International Division”.

To download the interntional webinar to watch, click here.

For more information about Sherrards’ international offering and our work with the IBA, ABA, Alliott Global Alliance and Law Society International Division, and how the Department for Business and Trade and Ministry of Justice can help you, please reach out to Paul Marmor.

Brexit, once a topic of uncertainty, has now settled into the legal landscape, but its effects on UK cross-border disputes continue to evolve. The UK legal market remains one of the most influential in the world, generating billions in revenue and serving as the governing law of choice for international contracts. However, with the post-Brexit legal framework firmly in place, businesses and legal practitioners must adapt to new rules for resolving disputes.

How Has Brexit Changed Cross-Border Litigation?

Before Brexit, the UK’s cross-border dispute framework was largely governed by EU regulations, which made enforcing judgments and serving legal documents across EU borders relatively straightforward. These regulations included the Brussels Recast Regulation, the Lugano Convention, and the EU Service Regulation.

However, since leaving the EU, the UK is no longer part of these agreements. Instead, the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements has become the primary legal instrument governing cross-border disputes. While this provides a solid framework for commercial disputes with exclusive jurisdiction clauses, it does not offer the same comprehensive coverage as the previous EU system. Some of the key differences include

• Enforcement of UK judgments in the EU – Since Brexit came into effect, the Brussels Regulations and Lugano Convention have fallen away. This represents the biggest impact on cross-border disputes. As a result, the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements – to which the UK is a party in its own right as of 1 January 2021 – now takes centre stage as the main reference point for conducting cross-border disputes. Note the emphasis on commercial disputes because whereas the Brussels Regulations apply to a broad range of civil disputes, Hague’s principal limiting factor is that it only applies to cross-border disputes where there is an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of a contracting state (note asymmetric or optional jurisdiction clauses do not qualify).  
• Limited scope of Hague – Hague is also a lot narrower in application, excluding from its ambit certain categories of dispute including consumer law, employment disputes and insolvency cases (among others). Its other major limitation is that it does not extend to interim relief such as freezing orders that could under certain conditions previously be passported into other EU member states. 
• Changes in service of proceedings – EFTA states are not a party to Hague, meaning the UK’s failure to join Lugano (despite its best efforts) creates a gap between the UK and EFTA states which is mitigated slightly by the fact that Norway and the UK have agreed to continue to apply Lugano; as to the remaining EFTA states, the recognition and enforcement of judgments is a question of the national law of those states. The EU Service Regulation has likewise been revoked and has been substituted for the not too dissimilar Hague Service Convention. Lastly Rome I and II continue to apply as they form part of the package of EU legal instruments which the UK continues to apply post Brexit as “EU retained law”, which in simple terms incorporated EU law as it stood at the end of the transition period into English law.

The UK Legal Market’s Resilience

Having identified the actual differences in the EU landscape, what does this mean in practice? While Brexit has introduced some procedural hurdles for cross-border litigation, its impact is less severe than it may seem. Despite some changes, the UK remains a leading jurisdiction for resolving cross-border disputes, with strong legal frameworks still in place.

Key factors help maintain the UK’s strong position in international dispute resolution:

• • Most commercial agreements remain covered – The Hague Convention applies to many cross-border contracts, provided they include exclusive jurisdiction clauses.
  • Recognition and enforcement of judgments continue – While the Brussels regime no longer applies, many EU countries have national laws that allow UK judgments to be enforced, and the UK has a robust framework for recognising inbound judgments.
  • Strong bilateral agreements – The UK maintains longstanding legal arrangements with key trade partners like Canada, Australia, India, and others, ensuring continuity in dispute resolution.
  • Anti-suit injunctions offer protection – The English Courts can now issue anti-suit injunctions, preventing parties from undermining jurisdiction clauses, which was restricted under EU law.
  • Minimal changes to service of proceedings – The Hague Service Convention largely replaces the EU system, and from 2021, UK courts no longer require permission to serve proceedings abroad when an English jurisdiction clause exists.

  Arbitration remains a strong alternative – International arbitration, governed by the New York Convention, is unaffected by Brexit and continues to thrive, further reinforcing London’s role as a global legal hub.

 

What This Means for Businesses and Legal Professionals

Some perceive a conspiracy of silence as to the adverse impacts of Brexit on the UK more generally.  But there is good reason to believe in the resilience of the UK legal market and that it has largely emerged unscathed; what empirical data there is suggests that Brexit has neither dented English law as a brand nor the Courts of England as the forum of choice for the resolution of disputes. 

We do however caution that it is still early days and warn against complacency.  The recent Portland Commercial Courts Report indicates that between 2021 and 2022 there has been a dip of 20% in the number of Commercial Court judgments that have been issued (possibly a function of the considerable resource constraints the Commercial Court has been experiencing in terms of judge availability) but the trend since 2016 remains upwards.  Moreover, 54% of the litigants in the Commercial Court were international, up from last year’s 50:50 split.  Of these non-UK litigants, the number of nationalities represented in the Commercial Courts has also expanded, with (interestingly) the number of EU litigants increasing slightly from 11.5% to 12% over the last year. 

London retains its pre-eminence as the preferred seat for arbitration: the number of referrals to the LCIA has increased in 2021/2022 to 444, representing a doubling of its case load of the last 10 years.  The growth in London-seated arbitration is possibly a collateral effect of Brexit in view of the enforcement benefits of the New York Convention.

Lastly, if English law is to be dislodged then there needs to be a viable alternative.  It is true that some economies have started to evolve their own body of commercial law creating competitive pressure on English law. However, much of what gives English law its considerable export value remains: the sophistication and depth of its body of contract law, the malleability of the common law and the potency of its precedent value to market participants.  In short, there are plenty of reasons to be hopeful that English law will maintain its market dominance and that English Courts, and London in particular, will continue to be the forum of choice for the resolution of cross-border disputes.

Need Expert Legal Advice?

The UK remains a top choice for international dispute resolution, but navigating the post-Brexit legal framework requires careful planning. If your business operates across borders and you need guidance on jurisdiction clauses, enforcement of judgments or arbitration, our expert legal team is here to help.

Get in touch with us today to discuss how we can support your legal needs in a post-Brexit world.

Sherrards’ Real Estate Litigation and Residential teams worked together to help our client to get vacant possession.

Vacant possession means the property must be empty on the day you complete your purchase or sale of it. 

The £5million property in Kensington had been sold subject to contract, however, there was a tenant in the property who was refusing to leave which was jeopardising the sale.

Proceedings were issued in the High Court.

The team worked hand in hand with our Residential Real Estate department in order to provide vacant possession and a successful outcome for our client and the sale of their property.

The deceased was accused of professional negligence and being part of a conspiracy to defraud in relation to the sale and purchase of a multi-million-pound yacht.

The Sherrards Dispute Resolution and Fraud department successfully challenged the claim, which was rightfully dismissed.

There was no suggestion of any wrongdoing on the part of the deceased, whose reputation was and remains protected.

The team defended this multi-million-pound fraud matter.

To find out more, please contact Paul Marmor. 

How often have we wandered into a bakery asking them to make a celebration cake, personalised to suit the occasion. Would you ever consider that such a request could give rise to 7 years of litigation, culminating in a recent decision by the European Court of Human Rights?

No, me neither.

But this is precisely what happened when Gareth Lee visited Ashers Bakery, a family run bakery in Belfast, with a request that they make him a cake with a picture of Bert and Ernie from Sesame Street and the slogan ‘Support Gay Marriage’. The bakery refused to fulfil the order because they felt it contravened their Christian beliefs.

Mr Lee, a gay rights activist, argued that by refusing to fulfil his order, the bakery had discriminated against him on grounds of his sexual orientation. Mr Lee, backed by the Equality Commission in Northern Ireland issued a claim for discrimination. He also argued that the refusal infringed his political beliefs because at the time he made the cake order, Northern Ireland did not legally recognise same sex marriages.

Ashers, backed by the Christian Institute in Northern Ireland, fought the case on the basis they maintained that they had not refused to fulfil the order because Mr Lee was gay, but because the order requested was contrary to their religious beliefs.

What followed was a series of hearings and appeals. At the initial hearing, the Court found in favour of Mr Lee and held that he had been discriminated against on the basis of his sexual orientation and his political beliefs. The Judge acknowledged that Ashers had “genuine and deeply held” religious views, but said their business was not above the law. The compensation to be paid to Mr Lee was £500.

Ashers appealed to the Court of Appeal but were unsuccessful.

They went one step further and appealed to the Supreme Court, the highest Court in the UK, in 2018. On this occasion, the Court ruled in favour of the bakery, effectively confirming that the owners of the bakery had to retain their rights to freedom of expression and religion.  

Mr Lee then took his case to the European Court of Human Rights, but they ruled his case inadmissible, suggesting that not all avenues have been exhausted in the UK. It remains to be seen if Mr Lee will pursue this further.

It is a case that has divided opinion. You can see the respective positions, as Mr Lee understandably felt his rights and beliefs have been infringed, but likewise, the bakery felt that their rights and beliefs would equally have been infringed had they fulfilled the order. In such a case, how do you decide whose rights and beliefs should be given preference over the other? Does one of set of rights and beliefs have greater value over the other? Possibly, a material factor in this dispute may have been the fact that the bakery always argued that they were not refusing to serve Mr Lee because of his sexual orientation; rather it was just a refusal to fulfil that specific order.

And, in case you were wondering, another bakery agreed to make the exact cake that Ashers refused to make, so despite the outcome of the latest instalment of the litigation, it could be said that Mr Lee was still able to have his cake and was able to eat it!

To find out more, please contact Mark Fellows.