The Impact of Brexit on the UK Legal System: A Detailed Report

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the impact of Brexit on the UK legal system. It examines the implications for human rights, parliamentary sovereignty, and the role of the EU law. The report discusses the changes in business law, including company law, contract law, and consumer protection. It also explores the effects of Brexit on dispute resolution methods, such as litigation, arbitration, and mediation. The analysis highlights the challenges and opportunities presented by the new legal framework, considering the effectiveness of the system and its impact on various sectors. The report further delves into specific areas such as employment issues, the protection of rights, and the impact on international trade and commercial transactions, offering insights into the evolving legal landscape post-Brexit.

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 proprietorships are the simplest way to initiate a business on one's own accord. The
enterprise is in the name of the solo owner who has to bear an unlimited liability of payment.
Partnerships are similar and they are to be run between two people or more working in
conjunction with an underlying norm of unlimited liability that is joint and several.
Sole traders must register with HM Revenue and Customs. There are three ways one can do this.
One can choose to fill an online form or print it and then submit it to the address so mentioned or
there can be a usage of dedicated number for the purpose. It is important to note that details like
National Insurance number , date of birth , postal address , address of the business unit , relevant
call details along with other contact details like email are asked. In addition, to these the focus is
on the product or services one engages in with reference to the start date of such business.
A deed of partnership specifies the profit and loss sharing methods as well as the responsibilities
and duties. Limited companies are incorporated by way of a separate procedure and thus hold
benefits under the statute.
The others are registered while a company is incorporated for the benefit of the stakeholders
which means they are separate legal entities distinct from the individual people. They also in this
way have a limited liability restricted upto the amount of stake they hold in the corporate. A

private company is defined statutorily under the statute and limit the number of the people
holding the business within those bounds. 50 shareholders in the UK is the norm. For a public
limited company here is an additional requirement of £50,000.00 in the UK.
To incorporate the same one needs to choose a suitable name and assign the duties of s director
and company secretary at the time of incorporation. Enlist the shareholders or the guarantors at
the instant time and identify the people who would have significant control over the company.
All suitable documents once verified would need the formation of memorandum and articles of
association distinctly. They are the backbones for day to day as well as on – going process. A
certificate of incorporation is awarded by the Companies House after due information of the
records to be maintained (Adams).
LO 4
When disputes arise between two or more parties the central focus shall be placed on the
contractual agreement that binds them. Herein , there was an Arrangement agreement between
the two parties. The mode of dispute resolution taken by Cineplex is litigation while Cineworld
is preparing to fight it. Both shall consider to adopt a more business – friendly approach to
resolve the dispute, in case the agreement is silent.
The circumstances in which the agreement has been called – off are murky. While the reasons
based in Pandemic would duly highlight the cash crunch situation; there are additional claims of
material breach of obligations causing adverse effect to the plans. Furthermore, there was an
additional period to remedy the breaches. Doctrine of Frustration is a possible tool with
Cineworld if they can depict the same in court. Though, one should necessarily focus that calling
– off the agreement would entail losses to both the companies ; while a possibility to concur
would be lost too.
Range of Choice
There are several other alternatives which could be adopted to prevent loss of time and money of
both. Mediation, Conciliation, Arbitration , Med – Arb process or just employing an expert to
determine the way ahead. All these methods present a sound alternative to traditional way of
dispute resolution which is litigation.
There are other possible alternatives to litigation as listed above. Litigation in corporate matters

especially 'arrangement agreements to restructure' are generally not unconscionable due to
imbalance of power. Documentation is lengthy and there is a piecemeal process to complete the
takeover. Litigation would only render one party a winner but ADR methods resolve the disputes
with overall positive gains for both the entities with added benefits of efficacy. The pertinent
question is about choice of a particular method that would be suitable to the needs of the parties.
Comparison
Arbitration has several advantages and is a popular mode to resolve disputes among corporate
bodies. It is suitable to resolve issues with precision and expertise. The process is simple and is
recognised by several countries due to uniformity of commercial laws brought about by
internationalisation and needs of an open economy and enforcement is easier. S. 66 of
Arbitration Act is relevant here. . Efficiency with expertise comes at a high cost which is a key
pitfall. The procedure at times be the cause of few delays.
Suitability of Arbitration as an alternative depends on the differences between the parties. An
amicable understanding is not the aim here; but all focus is to determine the faults and then seek
suitable remedy in form of damages. This hurts probability of future endeavours.
Mediation is another popular method to resolve issues. It keeps possibility of an amicable
solution alive as parties involved are to sit together and engage in a conversation to iron out
personal conflicts. Information sharing is thus restored as the collaborative process is facilitated
by a mediator. This form of information sharing may involve revealing key information which
might not be well suited choice to make in case a concession can't be allowed. It is a process that
is successful in avoiding high costs, delays and intricacies of law and evidence. Enforcement is
based in contractual agreements that are made to give effect to the process.
A Med-Arb process is a mix of the two , but a less preferred choice due to the possibilities of
leaking key concessions in the mediation process whereas Expert determination is a possibility in
matters where a particular technical field is involved, and parties agree for an informal but
binding decision.
Evaluation
The given scenario gives an overview of a heated dialogue between the parties. The situation
though seems to be based in a mutual conflict about certain specific breaches not completely

remedied by Cineplex and a simultaneous possibility of good faith violations. The tensions in
demeanour can be creased out by a collaborative process so as to maintain possibilities of future
endeavours which is a great possibility after the pandemic. A middle ground can be reached by
staggered payments and suitable remedies by each party in consideration to each other.
Mediation over arbitration is thus a preferred approach here. A Med – Arb might get difficult in
terms of cost as well as enforceability would not be quite a pertinent need if only liquidated
damages are sought. Expert Determination might be suitable if the tensions actually involve a
particular technicality.

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.