A Comprehensive Report on Brexit's Legal Ramifications in the UK

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal and business impacts of Brexit on the United Kingdom. It examines the implications of the absence of EU law, focusing on human rights protection, parliamentary sovereignty, and the role of common law. The report explores changes in consumer protection, competition law, and employment issues, highlighting the influence of EU-inspired legislation. It also delves into the impact on business structures, including sole proprietorships, partnerships, and limited liability companies, and the implications of Brexit on international trade and dispute resolution, particularly in the context of the Cineworld and Cineplex case. The report emphasizes the importance of alternative dispute resolution methods, like arbitration, in resolving business conflicts, and it concludes by discussing the challenges and opportunities presented by the post-Brexit legal landscape.

ASSIGNMENT

Table of Contents
MAIN BODY...................................................................................................................................3
LO 1 , LO 2.................................................................................................................................3
LO 3............................................................................................................................................5
LO 4............................................................................................................................................6
Range of Choice.....................................................................................................................6
Comparison ............................................................................................................................7
Evaluation...............................................................................................................................7
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................9

MAIN BODY
LO 1 , LO 2
In absence of EU what is at stake is protection by a bill of rights constitutionally accepted.
UK is a nation which doesn't have a written constitution and in the absence EU Charter
which has been specifically excluded there are several questions of Human Rights
Protection. The other key part is that the EU law had judicial fetter on the UK Law and thus
the parliament sovereignty was getting pinched. The directives from EU and decisions from
CJEU had to be incorporated in one way opr another. Though, the gains of the same cannot
be denied the idea of regulation of the internal market in terms of EU was particularly
limited. The national executives got more power over the parliament in a broader overview
due to representation rights in the supra – national body (Gee, 2016).
Domestic Rule making is now back to the original structure of formulating legislations by way of
Parliament as part of the statutory norms and any international treaty that is entered into by the
UK and subsequently ratified will be enforced through suitable amendments if required. The
other key source of law is common law which originated as a concept to govern the dominions
which were under the King and required uniform application. This is similar to the uni
formalisation in the global world. Doctrine of precedent is still in place with due regard to EU
laws and decisions of CJEU depending on the court's interpretation. The very proof of
Parliamentary sovereignity is in the execution of Brexit and a key statutory provison of section 4
, HRA 1988.
The courts are to follow the statutes which have been openly worded at places to give due
regard to the Judiciary in terms of interpretation. There is no formal authority for the court
other than to enunciate with clarity and practical applications.The effectiveness of the
system is quite similar to the pre 1973 times, and now better evolved with several EU
inspired laws several of which were also influenced from UK's corpus juris.
Further discussion of the legal crisis in the following text shall highlight the practical
examples that support the above judgement of good effectiveness.
To initiate one shall see how CJEU decisions both past and future will play out. As pointed
out earlier, the EU law has had positive effect on the UK laws not just in the field of tortious

liabilities of Consumer Protection but also a great deal in Private laws such as company and
contract law.
The Consumer Rights Directive led to the formation of a new legislation in 2015 guaranteeing
more precautions to the consumers based on the cobtractual terms and changing the erstwhile
Sale of Goods Act. This made the market across EU uniform. This is though, very similar to the
strict liability principle employed against the Producers under Consumer Protection Act 1987.
These important developments would remain a part of the UK law regime but there would be no
binding future guidance from CJEU.
Another key legislation in furtherance is that of Competition Act , 1988 which is based on the
TFEU for ensuring fair dealing and healthy competition. Courts may give due regard to the
future rulings and observation from EU courts but the value is persuasive at best.
In case of recent VAT rulings one can see the effect of EU tapering off , particularly when the
literal interpretations were not in line with intent of the economic policy in UK (Zu, 2020).
Though aspects of respect for a reputable court system , practices of common law jurisdiction
and the constant access to communication with judges in the supra national body might play a
key role in future developments (Giliker, 2019).
Employment issues have been gravely discussed since the Withdrawal bill doesn't feature the
presence of EU Charter. IN such absence there is a binding constitutional force preventing the
government from abusing its power. Focus shall be diverted to the presence of HRA 1988 to
highlight protection and existing of UK legislations. Aspects pertaining to EQUAL RESPECT
TO RELIGION, BELIEF, COLOUR, SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND AGE are necessary and
are present through several different legislations in the UK which were consolidated by EA
2010. Public authorities if biased, can still be acted against under HRA 1988 and then ECHR if
needed .The concerns largely present the abuse by private entities (Wintemute, 2016). It should
be pointed out that Disability Discrimination act and several others were a source of influence in
the EU law-making process and their presence highlights the value Parliament places on such
aspects.
Community Registered Design Rights is one area which is one aspect that is going to suffer in
the post-Brexit times (Derclaye, 2018). There is an absence of national legislation in this domain
which is a very critical aspect for community ownership. WTO processes have been accepted
under the umbrella of EU for the transition period but the statement from UK indicates collective

value with other countries to WTO processes; looking forward to engage with all 163 members
(WTO,2020).
London has been a central hub of commercial transactions and use to attract huge corporate
interest. The Passport directive under the EU process was of help to garner this interest. It
allowed for ease in tranportability of company documents as well approval process was
simplified. Part idea of Brexit was to curb undue foreign immigration. Once a prospectus from a
company outside the EU was approved as per the EU Norms, it was allowed to get listed and
approved with ease from the EU nations. FCA approved prospectus can find its way in other
stock exchanges with ease but the vice versa would not be the case. In case, the same level of
implementation is maintained chances of similar treatment are in question.
In short it is some what difficult to fathom that reliance has been sought under an unsettled
constitution by erosion of a 40 + year regime of EU laws. Efficacy is a question of future in the
highly debatable Brexit.
LO 3
Sole proprietorship or a sole trader is probably the most popular means of business in the local
markets across the globe. These businesses are simple to be structured and can be initiated and
worked around as per one’s whims. Rationality and business acumen as well as marketing and
sales are all parts that need to be played by a sole trader. As a result of this absolute freedom to
conduct the business the liability to cover the debt and honour the promise made are all on the
head of the sole trader. This kind of business thus has unlimited liability. It is run and featured by
the sole owner.
Partnerships are similar in nature except the new scheme of LLPs which make the liability f
partners limited rather than unlimited; though an essential feature of any partnership is joint and
several liabilities which means that the liabilities get shared to an extent. Two or more people
working together in a shared cause can devise a partnership deed and operate under it and claim
protection from law by getting the firm registered with HM Revenue and Customs. 1890 Act
governs this kind of structure.
Sole traders must also register with HM Revenue and Customs. There are three possibilities
among which one can choose. Fill an online form is the most convenient; while the other allows
for printing and submission. Important details that are generally sought under the scheme are :

date of birth , contact details like : postal address of the business unit and the trader, call details
as well as e-mail. National Insurance number is another detail sought. Details of the business like
product or services offered and date of incorporation are sought for revenue purposes.
While a mere registration works in other cases a joint liability company has to be incorporated as
a separate legal entity in the eyes of law. Limited liability is a key feature and the structure also
has some key legal dimensions attached to it. A private limited company has to operate within 50
shareholders; while a public listing requires an initial outlay of £50,000.00 in the UK. Duties of a
director and people in significant control are to be specified at the time of incorporation in
addition to all the general details. A certificate of incorporation is awarded once the Articles of
Association are duly verified and filed with the Company House as per the 2006 legislation
(Adams).
LO 4
Disputes tend to arise in all sorts of business relationships but the source and remedy of these
disputes both lie in the contractual agreement that parties start with. The parties involved here are
due to an arrangement agreement that must have had a few remedial clauses. Cineworld and
Cineplex are both looking to take the matter to the court but one can easily highlight the possible
issues both parties would face in case litigation is chosen as a possible answer to this dispute.
Issues of relevant jurisdiction and then the probable issues of enforcement would not only
lengthen the dispute but would lead both parties to bear high costs. A more business – friendly
approach to resolve the dispute is what both need in my opinion. This approach shall not just be
a cheaper and quicker alternative; but should also focus on resolution with future possibilities of
transactions.
The agreement to arrange and takeover Cineplex has been called off in light of the pandemic
situation as per Cineplex’s claims in response to which Cineworld says it was a material breach
of the arrangement agreement that brought them to halt and call off the deal. A possible
alternative to defend for both sides can be frustration due to different individual reasons and thus
but Cineworld’s claims highlight that there was a chance that was allowed to Cineplex, to
remedy the potential acts of breach. In light of these claims and a potentially weak argument
based in good faith dealing from Cineplex, side tends to weaken their chances. The facts do not
give any hints about the real deep lying issues and in my opinion it would only be suitable to

look for alternative remedies which would also protect the possibility of future transactions and
healthy competition.
Alternative Choices and the Possibilites
Alternative Dispute Resolution methods are gaining importance world over and in UK
particularly these have become a sort of necessary element to be explored before coming to the
judge. The deal at hand presents to us a mix of legal and factual issues and a potential underlying
dispute. In such a scenario remedies like Conciliation, Arbitration , Mediation and Med – Arb
process are quite relevant. If it suits to the parties a forma expert determination can be instituted
as well. All the possible methods listed above not only present a cheaper and effective method
but also are efficient in their structure with certain differences. Conciliation is one method which
is only possible under the statutory mandate while all others just require mutual consent between
the parties for concluding a resolution.
Litigation in the matter such as this which involves large sum of mney and possibly huge
damages and loss of goodwill are generally advised to be settled out of the court as it prevents
further loss of time and money. Documentation in these litigations can be cumbersome and focus
shall be placed on completing the arrangement process by resolving issues rather than claims of
damages ADR methods resolve the disputes with overall positive gains for all entities with added
benefits of efficacy. I shall now discuss about the one method which seems suitable for the
current situation.
Comparison
Arbitration is one of the most famous and arguably the most poular ADR method apted globally.
This out of court settlement allows not only the choice of procedural and substantive laws by
mutual agreement; but also tends to the special evidentiary requirement as per the needs.
Enforcement is generally based in a statute that allows for getting the value from the award
granted by an arbitration process. It resolves disputes with precision and expertise and the
growing uniformity in commercial laws at a global scale allows parties to choose their own seat
of arbitration. It suits an open economy and enforcement is easier. S. 66 of Arbitration Act in UK
is relevant for the purpose of enforcement.

Looking at the disadvantages it can be pointed out that such expertise comes at a high cost and at
time even arbitration can lead to some delays. Jurisdictional issues get resolved but might take
time. The parties choose arbitration because of its efficacy and the objective is to claim a suitable
award against the other. The process is based on mutual understanding but acrimony can’t be
avoided in this mode. The solution is one’s gain and other’s loss in some way or the other.
Mediation takes a key position on the pitfalls of arbitration. It is not only a cheaper alternative
but also allows for an amicable solution between the parties by facilitating communication across
the board. It helps in ironing out personal conflicts leading to better information sharing. It
requires a collaborative approach and parties are advised to go for a win – win position rather
than individual gains. The grave pitfalls of this mode is that it requires sharing of information
which parties might be apprehensive of creating possibilities of future jitters as at times certain
concessions can't be allowed. Those situations need something more deterministic and not a
collaborative approach. High costs and intricacies of law are subsided with only a calm and
open approach to the matter at hand. Crucial aspect of enforcement is sorted out by way of a
concluding contractual agreement, breach of which would entitle the other party to claim
damages.
In several cases Expert determination is employed to do away with initial information
asymmetry and clarify the issues for a mutual and informal decision making process. These tend
to be binding decisions and can be enforced through court of law as any other agreement.
Mediation cum arbitration process involves both the modes and is suitable for allowing
flexibility. Pitfalls of the system flow from mediation as a loss of crucial information can hinder
the possibilities of a certain win in the subsequent arbitration.
Evaluation of possible alernatives
A brief evaluation of the alternatives and their individual understanding explained above enables
me to suggest that t resolve the matter at hand Mediation seems to be a suitable mode. Expert
Determination might have been a suitable approach but the facts don’t quite highlight the
possibilities of a technical issue. The dispute is based in a mutual conflict about material breach
which in Cineworld’s view can be remedied. Future possibilities of such remedies can be
explored. Employing a collaborative process would reduce the burden on both parties and
maintain the opportunity to work together again on an arrangement agreement.

Staggered payments devised in a structural way through the facilitating mediator rather than a
claim of damages by an arbitrator giving primacy to one over the other would possibly be more
suitable here.

REFERENCES
Adams, A., Law For Business Students By Alix Adams.
Derclaye, E., 2018. CUDR and CRDR post-Brexit from a UK and EU perspective—Will all
unregistered design rights become history?. Journal of Intellectual Property Law &
Practice, 13(4), pp.325-331.
Gee, G. and Young, A.L., 2016. Regaining Sovereignty: Brexit, the UK Parliament and the
Common Law.Eur. Pub. L.,22, p.131.
Giliker, P., 2019. Interpreting retained EU private law post-Brexit: Can commonwealth
comparisons help us determine the future relevance of CJEU case law?. Common Law
World Review, 48(1-2), pp.15-38.
Schillig, M., 2016. Corporate law after Brexit. King's Law Journal, 27(3), pp.431-441.
Wintemute, R., 2016. Goodbye EU Anti-Discrimination Law? Hello Repeal of the Equality Act
2010?. King's Law Journal, 27(3), pp.387-397.
WTO, 2020.THE UNITED KINGDOM's WITHDRAWAL FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION:
COMMUNICATION FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM. WTO General Council.
Zu, Y. and Krever, R., 2020. The United Kingdom has spoken: The receding impact of European
jurisprudence on the UK interpretation of the common VAT system. Common Law World
Review, 49(1), pp.75-91.