The case

London ranks among the top positions when it comes to international legal disputes: Reliable English law, independent judges and qualified lawyers make the British capital a popular venue for commercial contracts. A survey by the communications agency Portland has confirmed this: 158 cases of disputes with parties coming from 69 countries were negotiated between March 2017 and April 2018 at specialized civil commercial courts in London, a slight increase compared to the previous period. Almost 60% of the cases were conducted without a British litigation party.

However, Brexit raises one question: If the UK becomes a third country after leaving the EU in March 2019, British judgments will no longer be enforceable in the EU without any problems. This raises the question as to how many EU litigants will engage in a UK jurisdiction in the future (…). To ensure that London’s attractiveness does not suffer, the British government will have to conclude new agreements. (…) Some EU countries, such as France, are setting up their own courts, which are based on common law.

Source: Portland (NZZ, May 25, 2018)

The commentary

International arbitration is not affected by Brexit. The enforcement of arbitration rulings is based on the 1958 New York Convention, which was signed by 159 countries.

This publication has been prepared solely for information purposes and is does not constitute a recommendation, a solicitation, or an offer. The information on which this publication is based has been obtained from sources that we believe to be reliable and in good faith, but we have not independently verified such information and no representation or warranty, express or implied, is made as to its accuracy. All expressions of opinion are made as of the date of publication and may be subject to change without notice. k-flash and all related affiliates accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for any consequential loss of any kind arising out of the use of this publication or any part of its contents. The use of this publication should not be regarded as a substitute for the exercise by the recipient of his or her own judgment. This publication is not directed to any person in any jurisdictions that prohibit such publication.