Brexit

Brexit

ARCHIVED: This Overview has been archived and is not maintained.

On exit day (ie 11:00 pm on 31 January 2020, as defined in section 20 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the UK ceased to be an EU Member State and lost its entitlement to participate in the political institutions and governance structures of the EU. In accordance with the transitional arrangements provided in Part 4 of the Withdrawal Agreement, exit day marked the commencement of an 11-month implementation period during which the UK was treated by the EU as a Member State for many purposes.

The implementation period ran until 11 pm on 31 December 2020, a point known as IP completion day (as defined in section 39 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. During that period, the UK was obliged to adhere to its obligations under EU law (including EU treaties, legislation, principles and international agreements), and submit to the continuing jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union in accordance with the Withdrawal

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Arbitration News

Arbitration weekly highlights—27 March 2025

This week's edition of Arbitration weekly highlights includes: coverage of arbitration-related decisions from England, Australia, France, Netherlands, Singapore, Sweden and the USA; updates from the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, FINRA, HKIAC, LMMA, SCC, SCIAHK, SIAC, and UNCTAD Arbitration Institutes, and Singapore's Ministry of Law; and analysis of international arbitration experts discussions on the major challenges for arbitration in 2025 and the of role of expert witnesses in arbitration proceedings. All this, and more, in our weekly highlights.

FINRA president hints at offloading arbitration oversight

Law360: The president of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) said on 25 March 2025 that he's considering whether another entity should take up the brokerage regulator's arbitration oversight, questioning whether it's an appropriate function for FINRA to continue running.

Challenges to institution administrative decisions—(DMZ v DNA)

Arbitration analysis: The High Court of Singapore refused to interfere with a decision of the Registrar of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) to amend the deemed date of commencement of an arbitration under Rule 3.3 of the SIAC Rules. The court agreed that the relationship between the parties and the SIAC was a contractual one and that the Registrar was required to exercise the power in a lawful manner and in accordance with the SIAC Rules. However, it held that Rule 40.2 expressly prohibited appeals from or reviews of decisions of the President, Court or Registrar of SIAC. By seeking a declaration that the date of commencement was different from that decided by the Registrar, the plaintiff was mounting a back-door appeal. The plaintiff’s only remedy was to await the award and apply to set it aside on the basis of the incorrect commencement date. The challenge to the decision was therefore in breach of the parties’ agreement and an abuse of process attracting an order for indemnity costs. Written by Dr Cameron Ford OAM SC is a arrister at William Forster Chambers.

Arizona District Court’s ruling on CISG, merger and termination-for-convenience clauses (Kumpers v TPI)

Arbitration analysis: The US District Court for the District of Arizona ruled that the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) applied under a governing law clause stating that Arizona law would govern ‘without giving effect to any choice-of-law principles’. Citing established US case law, the court held that the CISG applies as part of federal law under the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, thereby negating any conflict-of-law considerations. Upon determining the CISG's applicability, the court analysed its relevance to the termination-for-convenience and merger clauses. It found that there was a gap in the CISG, as CISG did not regulate termination-for-convenience, and therefore applied Arizona state law to address the issue. Additionally, the court held that the merger clause derogated from CISG Article 8(3) by excluding consideration of prior agreements, negotiations, and discussions. Finally, the court ruled that the doctrines of estoppel, waiver, and unclean hands were not governed by the CISG. Written by Dr Gizem Alper, international legal & ADR consultant and Institute of International Commercial Law at Pace Law School.