Brexit, Miller and International Dispute Resolution

Background

Brexit is a term which has been uttered in countries across the globe to describe the referendum in which the UK voted to leave the European Union. The UK public has decided that they no longer wish to be a member of the EU. The media tell us that the will of the people must be followed. Politicians tell us that “Brexit means Brexit”. However, of these three statements, only one is clear. The UK public voted to leave the European Union. This has caused complications in attempting to leave the EU. It is firstly unclear what ‘Brexit’ actually means, other than leaving the EU. Secondly, the process of leaving the European Union is unclear. The Government are of the opinion that article 50, the provision which concerns member states’ exit from the EU, could be activated using the royal prerogative. However, this opinion has been challenged in the courts, with Gina Miller leading the charge. Gina Miller & Co contend that article 50 can only be activated by an Act of Parliament, which the High Court at first instance agreed with. This decision was appealed by the Government and is currently being considered by the Supreme Court. This decision sparked outrage among the right-wing media, who branded members of the judiciary ‘Enemies of the People’. The Daily Mail then launched an attack on Supreme Court Justices, giving them a ‘Europhile’ rating. This article is not concerned with the validity of the decision itself. Instead, it will discuss the dangers which these attacks from the right-wing media could have on dispute resolution in the United Kingdom. The Effects on Dispute Resolution

The United Kingdom is considered as one of the largest centres for dispute resolution in the world. It is often host to large Russian disputes, some of which are worth billions of pounds. An example of this is the claim brought by Boris Berezovsky against Roman Abramovich, the owner of Chelsea Football Club. This claim, worth billions of pounds, was heard in the UK courts. One reason for this is the quality of the judiciary. The parties know that their claim will be heard by a judge who is independent and free from political influence, and will decide cases fairly. In addition, members of the judiciary will have gained a significant level of expertise, and they can, therefore, be trusted to come to the correct decision. There is a worry, therefore, that the criticism of the judiciary by the right-wing media could put the quality of the UK judiciary into disrepute. It is not difficult to see why large international companies might be discouraged from bringing their disputes to the UK courts, when newspapers such as the Daily Mail are accusing the courts of allowing their political leanings to affect their decisions, and of reaching a decision which causes injustice to 52% of UK voters in the referendum. This could, therefore, lead to cases, such as the case brought by Berezovsky against Abramovich, being decided elsewhere. This will be a worrying thought for large international law firms in London, many of which have large, well-established dispute resolution practices. London losing these cases means that there is less demand for dispute resolution in the UK, and less work for those law firms. This is especially worrying for law firms when the size of those cases is taken into account. As was seen in the case against Abramovich, some cases can be worth more in excess of a billion pounds. Conclusion

The possible effects outlined, which could arise as a result of the media criticising the UK judiciary, shows the importance of protecting the integrity and independence of the UK judiciary. However, this should not be seen as supporting the censoring of criticism by the media. Rather, as appalling as some members of the UK public may find the Daily Mail’s comments, the right to freedom of expression should continue to allow such comments. However, Liz Truss, as the Justice Secretary, should have defended the judiciary in the High Court decision, and reinforced their independence and fairness to protect the UK’s status as a renowned centre of dispute resolution. Liz Truss has so far failed to do so, and the continuing failure to do so could, as has been discussed, could have an effect on large international law firms with London offices if these high-profile disputes are no longer heard in UK courts. It is, therefore, essential that the reputation of the judiciary is better protected.