 Gweithdoedd, wrth gwrs. Maen nhw Ychelio Kelly, ysgolor yma, ac yn gweithio gyda'r Gweithfyrdd gyda'r Gweithfyrdd gyda'r Gweithfyrdd Gweithfyrdd. Rydym yn dech pog oedd y Gweithfyrdd gyda'r Gweithfyrdd gyda'r Gweithfyrdd gyda'r Gweithfyrdd gyda'r Gweithfyrdd. Roedd yn y llei, ac yn fawr, mae'n gobeithio hyd yn y last. Pen am y fawr yma,thyn nhw'n cael byddai cyflwy deficio ac yn meddwl iconiaeth hynny. A'r fawr yn neb, mae'n ddechrau am yr un ffordd. Rhaid i'r meddwl yngh치�don rhaid i'r ddau, dwi'n meddwl gweld i'n meddwl yng Nghymru. Rydyn ni'n credu cael ei bod gyda'r cyfnod gyda'r Gw AA yn yr Union Eurpoedd. Mae g 상황 ar hyn yn digwydd wrth ei ddisafodol cynical Haw. Grafwch i'n cael hwn terroristaWait yn hyn momenten ddechrau bwrdd'r legisliad i filedri Ddechrau Euf fliwydiau wedi Iedd. Esyn на rhan i bwyd'i gweld y rhai dificultad pan yw'r drws. Dych chi'n mynd wiellg o werth troedd gweithio. Mae'r bwysig. Rydyn ni'n meddwl y byddwch arall, wrth i'r ffais. Mae'n ddweud y bwysig yn Chycago yn ym Mhwyl, yn blaen i'r bwysig i'r bwysig a'r bwysig yn Llyfrgell Llyfrgell, a'r Llyfrgell yn Llyfrgell yn Llyfrgell. Mae'r bwysig i'r bwysig i'r bwysig i'r bwysig, gennym hynny'n ymlaen o'r busg a'i'r bwysig, o ran fydd ychydig o hynny'n gynllud i'r wyf sy'n gwaith o'r ddaf i'r gwaith i eu Llywodraeth, yn ystod o'r gwaith i ddim yn ymdrygiad, a'r ffrath i'r ddysgu'r lles ond, o'r dyfodol cyflawniaith teimlo ond. Yn ddiwedd o'r cyflawniaith cydydd ymlawniaeth, sy'n ddigon i'r gwneud o'r cyflogol yn gweithio gysaith. Mae'n ddod o'r lles fan o'r ddiddordeb yn oed y dyfodol cyflawniaeth teimlo cyflawniaith ond rydyn ni'n gwasanaeth i'r ddweud o gydych yn ymwyno. Roeddwn i'n ddod yn ddweud edrych o'r pethau amser oesio'r cymorth ar y cyfnodd. Roeddwn i'n lle ddweud o'r claretu sy'n amser o'r cyffredinol ar y Brexit. Dyma mae'r ffordd o'r dyfoddan yn yma, ond rydyn ni'n ymdweud o'r cyfnodd. Roeddwn ni'n ddweud o'r cyffredinol ar gyfer y drwng. Roeddwn ni'n ymddangos i'r ddweud o'r cyffredinol. If it doesn't go through what happens or if it does go through what happens so far as the issues with which we're concerned also remains open to doubt. I if I were to go through the whole paper it would probably take too long. So I propose to speak to it and to deal with the general themes that are addressed in it. As DX likely said, the ultimate concentration is on opportunities. But I think before we get to opportunities, there are a few building blocks that are necessary to identify the challenges and also why there might be opportunities. I suppose the starting point has to be to acknowledge that since Ireland joined the then European Economic Community in 1973, the reach of European union law into the legal systems of all of the member states has grown to a very significant extent and I think it would be fair now to say that almost all practicing lawyers, regulators, public officials and courts are affected to frequently a significant extent by issues of European Union law and to the extent that European Union law has now become intertwined to a large extent with the legal systems of the member states and it's that very enmeshment of European Union law that makes the disentanglement required by brexit all the more problematic and I would think even in areas that are not particularly controversial in themselves but nonetheless require agreement. Obviously focus on the challenges and opportunities for the Irish legal system are rising out of brexit and I do suggest that Ireland does have significant opportunities but there are ones which won't happen automatically and which require careful work and consideration before they can be exploited. I think it is fair to say that from a general perspective no one thinks that brexit is positive but insofar as there are negative areas the aim has to be to attempt to mitigate them but also to identify areas where there may be opportunities and to exploit those as best they can and I think international dispute resolution is certainly an area where there are potentially opportunities for Ireland. I think we need to start with some explanation of the instruments of judicial cooperation which have been developed by the European Union over the last perhaps 20-25 years and which advantage at the moment the United Kingdom but may be capable of being used to our advantage post brexit. I think it is important to emphasise that historically much of transborder litigation or other forms of dispute resolution including arbitration in transborder insolvency were governed by what were known as the principles of private international law and for the benefit of nonlawyers public international law is the law relating to treaties and relations between states. Private international law is concerned with things like the decision as to which courts are to have jurisdiction which courts recognise the decisions of other courts what law is to be applied and the Irish law in that area was largely based on the UK common law and similar principles apply in the United States and many other countries that are in that tradition but increasingly over the years much of this area of law was codified in European Union law in matters such as the Brussels regulation the Rome regulation and the like so that there is now a body of European Union law that governs decisions in most areas and certainly in the kind of areas that are likely to be the subject of international litigation decide which country should have jurisdiction what law should be applied what level of recognition should there be when should countries cede jurisdiction to another country and it is I think that codified set of laws and its potential application or not application to the United Kingdom post brexit that really is at the core of the questions which I want to address today but I want to start with a little bit of background concerning what actually from a legal perspective brexit actually is I suppose everyone now knows that it's governed by article 50 because we keep hearing about the article 50 notice but I think it is important just to pause to look at what that article actually does and article 50 sub article 2 requires a member state who decides to withdraw and that's the term that's used to notify the European Council of its intention and as we all know the United Kingdom did that on the 29th of March 2017 the article 50.3 provides that the treaties the European Union treaties cease to apply to that state the withdrawing state either when a withdrawal agreement comes into force or in the absence of a withdrawal agreement two years after the notification so strictly speaking it could happen in less than two years it's not that you automatically leave in two years if there happened to be a quicker withdrawal agreement specific which came into force earlier it could have happened in less than two years but that obviously isn't going to happen at this stage the height of what might happen is that there's a withdrawal agreement that will come into force on the second anniversary being the 29th of march of next year but it is important to note what that article says it says that the treaty shall cease to apply to the state in question from that date or failing from the date of the withdrawal agreement or failing that two years after the notification referred to so what happens is the treaty cease to have effect European Union law stops having effect in the withdrawal state on the second anniversary subject to whatever may be in a withdrawal agreement so if we're talking about so-called no deal brexit many consequences economic political and the like but from a legal perspective a no deal brexit meaning brexit where there is no withdrawal agreement in place by the 29th of march of next year means simply that the treaty cease to apply to the United Kingdom it ceases for our purposes on the purposes of the other 27 to be a member and therefore European Union law treats the United Kingdom as if it was no different to any other third party country the same as the United States Australia Nigeria or anywhere else and there may be matters such as WTO that has application but nonetheless in the absence of a withdrawal agreement there is no formal legal relationship between of a European Union nature between the remaining states and the withdrawing states and indeed this is confirmed I think in a recent communication from the European Commission which says that if the withdrawal agreement is ratified before the 30th of march 2019 so that it can enter into force on that day EU law will cease to apply to an in the United Kingdom on the at the end of the transition period agreed which was envisaged and I think still is envisaged at least initially to be for 21 months so the first kind of fork in the road as it were is that on the 29th of march we either will have a withdrawal agreement or we won't if we don't have a withdrawal agreement the treaty cease to apply as of that day to the UK if there is a withdrawal agreement in its current form or in anything remotely like it then in for practical purposes so far as the legal issues are concerned the treaties will continue to apply during what's come to be known as the transition period up to either the the end of 2020 or perhaps given that there's an extension provision built into the current draft of the withdrawal agreement for some period after that so I suppose that from a legal point of view and looking at challenges and opportunities we are looking at two key points one is do we have a withdrawal agreement by next march if no then simply EU law ceases to apply to the UK if yes then there are further negotiations during a transition period and at the end of that we then have an unclear situation because what happens then depends on the nature of the agreement entered into there is an aspiration in the political documents accompanying the withdrawal draft at the moment that there will be negotiated a high level of co-operation in amongst other things civil and judicial matters so there's an intention that there would be some sort of a deal governing the the legal relations of the type I'm discussing post the end of the transition period but precisely what the nature of that is going to be is something that I think remains open to some doubt and one of the things I want to to deal with is to point out that there are difficulties in relation to precisely replicating the current suite of arrangements between the UK as a member of the EU and the remaining states in a post brexit situation so that uncertainty is also something perhaps to mark because it's something I want to come back to as a relevant factor in the opportunities that Ireland has at the moment the other building block of course to this is as he said that Ireland is a common law system and will I think it's fair to say post brexit be the only fully common law system essentially there are four current members of the EU which are to a greater or lesser extent in the common law fold Ireland and the UK are two Cyprus is a jurisdiction where its private law is largely derived from the common law although much of it has now been codified but it's public law in other words the law relating to challenges to government executive and similar decisions is based to a significant extent on the French code Napoleon so it's sort of half and half common law and civil law and it's of course a lot smaller than we are Cyprus is about a million people Malta is also partly a common law country smaller again at about half a million and curiously it's the other way around to Cyprus its public law is common law and its private law is based on the French system I think in both cases perhaps largely reflecting different historical experience with who happened to be the occupying powers at different parts of their recent legal history so essentially post brexit we are left as by far the largest common law country even though we're obviously very small and the only country that is fully common law and that brings with it many challenges but also perhaps gives rise to the opportunities to which I will shortly turn Gerard Hogan now advocate general at the court of justice in a recent paper I think expressed somewhat pessimistic views about the ability to maintain a common law voice post the departure of the United Kingdom and I don't doubt the very significant challenges that exist I would take a slightly more optimistic view than Gerard Hogan takes but I suppose this is one of those issues where the proof of the pudding will be in the eating but the one thing that is I think absolutely essential is that for Ireland to retain its status as truly being a common law country will require effort on our part and there is risk that with the departure of the United Kingdom European legislation perhaps even European case law will increasingly ignore the alternative common law position and I think that's a particular risk if we don't mind the shop as the largest remaining common law country. It is worth perhaps reflecting on the fact that the Irish Supreme Court is a member of three Europe wide Supreme Court bodies you might ask why are we a member of three bodies well many European countries have very different court structures to ours in most countries in the civil law system there is a separate constitutional court or tribunal which is separate from how am I called the ordinary Supreme Court whereas typically in common law systems here the US Canada and the like the same Supreme Court carries out both roles also in a majority but not all civil law countries public law judicial review and the like is dealt with in an entirely separate stream of courts with their own Supreme Court or in some countries applying a French model of conse d'état which acts partly as an advisory body on legislation but also as the final court for public law matters and each of those streams has its own grouping which come together to discuss matters of mutual interest but in my experience I've been involved in one of them for about five years and in all of them since I became chief justice last year they are increasingly being consulted by the commission on issues concerning legal developments possible future legal developments legislation as was mentioned earlier and while there are many strands that feed into the ultimate text of legislation that goes through and it's very important that the Irish voice is heard in all of those strands I think it is the case that increasingly the commission wants to consult with the bodies representative of the supreme courts throughout Europe as part of the process of attempting to improve the quality of legislation and in that context it's interesting to note a program promoted by the vice president of the commission Timmermans called Better Regulation and that program has been put in place in conjunction with the association of supreme administrative courts of the EU a body called ACA by its acronym and the purpose of that program in a pilot scheme is to identify areas of legislation that are not working not issues of policy not issues where one might not agree with the legislation but rather where on a nuts and bolts basis the legislation doesn't seem to be doing what it's meant to do and obviously and perhaps it's a bigger point to make in America because their system is different but obviously the day-to-day implementation of European law in Europe is done in national courts we don't unlike the United States have federal courts in each area so the Irish High Court or the High Court in England or the Cossassion in France or whatever is applying on a regular basis at European Union law and it's there for those coal phase courts that are able to identify problems in legislation and put forward technical solutions for those problems and this pilot scheme as I say been run with the on the initiative of the vice president of the commission I think is an example of how the commission is looking to the coal phase courts to for help in identifying problems with with legislation and perhaps in the future may even seek to consult in advance of legislation so while I don't think courts themselves would be by any manner of means the sole input into legislation clearly there are other bodies much closer to the process of crafting legislation both in the council and in the parliament nonetheless I think courts will play a significant role and there's a similar project being undertaken by the European Association of Judges which is called Ways to Brussels which has similar ends but the purpose of mentioning these is to give my own experience of these bodies which is that they frequently do want a common law voice on their working groups and committees it's my experience that they always do I've been involved with the ACA body for perhaps five or six years now and every time they want they set up a working group or a sub committee they want a common law voice on it and we have probably as we often do in Europe punched above our weight and been more regularly represented than the UK perhaps because we're a bit more active in European matters but I suspect virtually the entire burden of supplying members for such bodies in the future is going to fall upon us and that is a burden on both a small country and also a country where in common with the common law tradition the number of judges in the higher courts is much smaller I mean typically Supreme Courts in civil law countries have 30 40 50 upwards of 100 members divided into chambers dealing with different specialisations the Irish Supreme Court is not unusual in its size in the common law world having at the moment eight members but supplying people to attend to have an Irish voice at the table is I think going to be a challenge to us but one which we're willing to undertake but I would agree with Jared Hogan that there is a danger and this I suppose is the last point I want to make before getting on to the opportunities there is a danger that if the common law voice is not heard at those tables whether it's civil servants crafting legislation drafts people producing the legislation judges or others being consulted on the legislation if there isn't a common law voice at the table then there is a real risk that unintended consequences will flow from legislation being drafted by those from a different legal tradition who wouldn't necessarily understand that it might not fit easily into a common law system and that I would see is one of the great dangers from our point of view we've had experience in the past perhaps of some types of legislation that have not fitted easily into the Irish model a lot of our environmental legislation for example has caused major trouble over recent years and I think partly it's because we didn't work out at an early stage in a very clear way how best European legislation was to fit into a common law system and I think the UK have had not just similar difficulties in some areas so that's the starting point I suppose to to have the opportunities Ireland has to remain a common law country and it has to be the case that the common law can survive within the boundaries of an EU without the UK that's not a given I think but it is something that can be done my perception is that there is a willingness to accommodate the common law voice but that willingness has to be accompanied by preparedness on our part to be able to voice that voice to be at the table so that voice can be expressed so where then do the opportunities come from well the UK I think it's fair to say has built up a very significant position as a major centre for international dispute resolution and there are many reasons for that but I think one of the biggest reasons for it is to be found in the fact that for countries outside the EU the UK particularly America Canada and other countries in the common law world the UK has a familiar legal system and it is interesting that while obviously from a continental perspective the common law is relatively scarce having only four countries in much of the rest of the world there is a desire to accommodate common law forms of litigation it's very interesting if you go to Dubai that Dubai has a parallel system of courts called the DIFC courts connected with the Dubai international financial services centre so that parties can opt in to going to a common law court in Dubai rather than going through the ordinary Sharia courts of the Emirates and why do they have that and other similar experiments have taken place in other Middle Eastern countries I think the answer is simple it is because the kind of companies that are doing business there want to be able to litigate in a legal system with which they're familiar so I think that's the starting point there is an appetite for major international corporations obviously they like to avoid litigation in the first place but if they are faced with litigation they would like if possible that that litigation can be conducted through a legal process with which they're familiar and I think that gives an appetite for a common law dispute resolution system of course the other great advantage the UK had was the whole series of European Union measures which provide that the orders of European Union courts provided they comply with the requirements of the various regulations travel throughout the entire EU you have the Brussels one recast regulation which sets out uniform rules to determine questions of jurisdiction and also provides for the recognition and enforcement of judges of a member state court in another member state where the judgment of the court which is to be recognized is the correct court so far as the the regulation is concerned there are also choice of law provisions to be found in the Rome regulations and also there is an insolvency regulation which provides for determining which courts jurors are which countries courts are to have principle or central jurisdiction over cross border insolvencies and my judgment the UK has greatly benefited by the fact that it is both within the common law world and therefore has a familiar litigation system to many outside but also can exploit as it were these cross European measures so that decisions of the UK courts in many cases carry throughout the European Union earlier this year I attended a conference of an international body which represents insolvency practitioners called insol which took place in New York in the spring mainly solicitors and accountants who are heavily involved in international insolvency and the consensus there I think firstly was that the factors I've just identified were central to the UK having become a major centre for the resolution of international insolvency issues and the European Union regulation the insolvency regulation provides that the courts of the country where a company has its so-called centre of main interest COMI or COMI are to have the primary role in determining how to organise what are often very complex issues of interlocking companies in different jurisdictions assets in different jurisdictions different legal systems applying for example to workers rights and the like and the whole point behind the insolvency regulation was that there should be one country that would be in charge its rules would run throughout the European Union but there might be secondary insolvency proceedings in other countries to sort out as it were local issues most senior insolvency practitioners will tell you that given a reasonable amount of time and effort and time is about 18 months they would say they can probably get COMI to go nearly anywhere you want so if you decide today that you would like your insol you've seen insolvency coming down the road you're going to have to reorganise your company you're in debt and you decide you want to use the UK system and you set about doing it today you can reorganise things so that COMI will be in the UK by the time you have to move to bring your insolvency proceedings and it will then be the UK courts that will decide it so while in theory the regulation points to an objectively determined jurisdiction the truth is people can adjust the criteria that by reference to which that objective decision is made and can perhaps not completely but to a significant significant extent choose the jurisdiction they want and they have typically in in Europe very frequently chosen the United Kingdom which has an effective corporate reorganisation system called administration and also has a schemes of arrangement model which also allows for the reorganisation of international companies and we too have similar models not identical the examinorship model in Ireland is perhaps closer to the American chapter 11 than the UK administration model one could go on for a long time about the differences between them but I think it's beyond the scope of what we're talking about today but we also have the same almost identical schemes of arrangement measures in our companies act as the UK have in theirs so the legal tools that Ireland has are every bit as good as the UK but obviously in the past the UK was bigger it was much more likely to be the centre of international insolvency litigation because the orders of the UK courts travelled throughout the entire European Union but post Brexit it is most unlikely that that will continue precisely what arrangements might be entered into between the EU and the UK remain open to doubt but I find it difficult to see and I didn't find too many insolvency practitioners who felt that it was likely that arrangements could be made that would give the UK the kind of access to orders that would travel throughout the European Union as they enjoy today it's a bit like the passporting and finance so there's limits to how far the European Union is likely to go particularly if the UK is not prepared to sign up to the jurisdiction of the court of justice and that seems to be one of the red lines that is not being breached at the moment so I think that's a good example of where an opportunity can come we have the tools in Ireland we probably weren't able to exploit them because the UK had them as well and they're a lot bigger than us but post Brexit we will remain a common law jurisdiction and for cases such as those major cross border insolvencies we can offer a country which has the same legal measures available but which will retain orders which will be enforceable throughout the European Union and similar provisions I think apply in relation to other forms of litigation and other forms of dispute resolution such as arbitration we have a very modern arbitration law in Ireland pretty well completely adopting the unsentral model law which again has its attractions and being within the European Union and having orders that are therefore enforceable throughout the European Union is I think potentially a very major advantage to to Ireland so I suppose the reason why I think there are opportunities for Ireland comes from an analysis of why the UK has done well somebody suggested to me and it's only anecdotal but that they felt that the total business done over the last 15 to 20 years in the UK legal business because of the UK's position within the European Union and as a good place for international dispute resolution for that reason was probably of the order of a billion pounds sterling a year it wouldn't take a great share of that to come to Ireland for that to be a significant benefit to to Ireland and of course there isn't really a downside to it this is equivalent to an internationally traded service this work is going to be done somewhere if it's done in Ireland whether by Irish lawyers or others or perhaps a mix it's going to bring income to Ireland which wouldn't otherwise come to Ireland for no great cost so it seems to me that this is an opportunity that we certainly need to look at it is I think however important also to acknowledge that there are challenges in even that opportunity and we are not the only show in town there are others who are interested in benefiting from what they see is the likely reduction in the UK's share of this type of international dispute resolution and that's hardly surprising given the scale of what's at stake very interestingly the paris commercial court has now established a division which allows parties to plead both in writing and orally in English the idea that the French have gone so far as to allow keldomage English to be used in their courts as a means of communication is I think an interesting sign of how interested in gaining their share of the work they are also the Dutch are considering setting up courts that will be friendly and also the Germans that will be friendly to the type of litigation about which I speak so there is no doubt that we have competitors for this market I think the fact that we are a common law country and provided we can retain a significant common law flag within the EU gives us an advantage that no one else has and I was speaking week before last to the chairman of a major American law firm who was visiting Ireland because they'd set up an Irish branch and I asked him why was it that they frequently advised their clients who had trans national business involving Europe to enter into contracts that chose the UK as the jurisdiction in which litigation was to be held and chose the UK law as the law to be applied and he said really it's simple they speak the same language as us they have a legal system and a litigation system with which we're familiar and they're part of the EU so why wouldn't you but they were concerned and the reason why they were interested in Ireland and the reason why he was here is they're concerned about whether that makes sense in two or three years time when some of those advantages are going to disappear I'm not suggesting for a moment that the UK is suddenly going to lose all of its international dispute resolution work they have great expertise they're bound to retain a significant amount of it but there certainly are concerns on the part of those who might be involved in international litigation that losing automatic recognition throughout the European Union is a significant matter and that's why they are looking for alternatives it's very interesting that the body representative of those who are engaged in international swaps and derivatives traditionally had three forms of standard contract this is sort of esoteric financial instruments that some people understand I don't claim to be one of them but they can involve a lot of money and there is often litigation arising out of them and historically they had a new york law version they had a UK law version and they did a Japanese law version and perhaps just to take one step back most of the time contracting parties are free to agree the jurisdiction in which any litigation arising out of the contract will take place and are free within significant limits to agree what law is to apply so you can have choice of law choice of jurisdiction clauses so you can have a standard contract that says UK law is going to apply and if there's a dispute it's going to be litigated in the UK courts or alternatively in New York and because America is treated as 50 different countries for these purposes it has to be an individual state rather than than at the US as a whole very interestingly that very substantial international body has now added two new standard forms to their repertoire one is an Irish jurisdiction Irish law Irish choice of law version and the second is a French I would assume they don't do that for fun they do it because that is a choice that some of their members may wish to exercise and my understanding would be that the reason why they feel that choice might be exercised at least by some in favour of Ireland is there will be those who will wish to continue to litigate in a common law country through a common law litigation system will do so in a country which is within the EU and whose orders will automatically be enforced throughout the EU I think there are other challenges which we face however um one would hear on the grapevine that our competitors are putting it about that we don't have the capacity to deal with the significantly increased volume of international litigation and being realistic no country particularly no small country has an unlimited ability if we were to quadruple the volume of significant complex commercial litigation in Ireland we probably would struggle to deal with it but I think it is fair to say that certainly up to now the Dublin commercial court has enjoyed a significant international reputation speaking to judges from the European court I know that the Irish bar would be regarded by them along with the UK as among the most impressive of the litigators that they come across so I don't think we lack both in the courts and in those who might appear in the courts uh people who would be well able to do the job um it would be necessary I think if there was any significant growth in the amount of international litigation finding its way to Ireland that there would be additional judges appointed and not just to make up the numbers as it were but also judges with sufficient backup to enable them to do the work and also I think it does have to be said and even though this is trespassing a little close to controversial areas that both the method of selection of those judges and the terms and conditions that might be offered to them would have to be sufficient that they could attract the kind of people who would retain that reputation um it's all be all very well saying well we're common law we speak English and we're in the European Union but if people don't think our courts are up to the job then the work isn't going to come to Ireland the UK courts have that high reputation I think we also have it but if we're to retain it particularly in the context of an increased volume then we need to make sure that we are able to appoint people of suitable quality to be able to conduct that litigation in the courts and that is potentially a challenge but I think it's one that is capable of being met and certainly the impression I get from government is that they are aware of that challenge and the need to meet it if this is to be an area in which we are going to be able to exploit the opportunities which arise and I might just add on the are we up to it side of the question an anecdotal account of what was said to me by a number of English insolvency practitioners at the conference to which I referred and it really was something that was one of my take home points from that conference um obviously they prefer not to lose the work they like it they get well paid for it they'd like to keep it um but I think certainly so far as the individuals are concerned if it was to go or to the extent that it might go they very much preferred it to come to Ireland rather than say France or Germany or Holland this was not out of good old fashioned love the paddies or anything like that but rather from a narrow self-interested point of view the ease of transition between the relevant professions in Ireland and the UK long before we were ever members of the EU was very straightforward the same large accountancy firms that provide the accountants in the major insolvency transborder cases operate in older restrictions in fact they frequently send people cross borders anyway if there's need for particular expertise in the Irish office dealing with a particular type of insolvency you may well find a senior person from the office in London of the same major accountancy firm coming over to Ireland for six months so in terms of having the personnel available to manage a large amount of largely increased amount of complex litigation I think insofar as we can supply it directly ourselves there is ease of transition solicitors baristers can very easily transfer from Ireland to England um one of my jobs is to call people to the bar and it's interesting that in the call this year out of a total call of approximately 130 and almost 40 were London lawyers taking up their entitlement to also become Dublin lawyers I don't suspect most of them are going to turn up in the law library tomorrow looking to do personal injury work I suspect they want to have the badge so that they are EU lawyers post brexit but it does demonstrate that you know we are I think capable of handling a significantly increased volume of litigation of one sort or another if it comes our way so the in conclusion what I would say is that there are challenges which brexit is likely to create for Ireland in ensuring that the common law voice including the particularly Irish position is effectively represented at EU level but I think our status as a common law English speaking EU Member State with an effective court system a highly regarded legal profession and judiciary with a well respected international reputation has the potential to place us as a hub for dispute resolution in the EU after brexit and I think that we have in those factors something that is unique to us we will have challengers I think it's almost inevitable that the UK will lose some of their position and it's almost inevitable that all of the work lost by the UK will not end up in one place but we have some unique characteristics which allow us to be well placed to fight our corner in obtaining a share of that which may lose maybe lost by the UK and I think at least in some respects we have a series of advantages that no other country shares no one else can combine being in the EU operating a common law system speaking English and having courts that are used to dealing with these kind of disputes and that's perhaps the last point I'd make there have been significant international cases run in the Irish commercial court in recent years and I don't think it lacked the competence to deal with them there have been a whole series of cases for example arising out of the collapse of the Madoff empire which have run in the Irish courts and very interestingly I was involved in some of them as a high court judge in the commercial court and very interestingly in one case we were involved in there was a parallel proceedings running in the federal courts in the US in the so-called southern district of New York which is which covers Manhattan therefore covers wall street and is therefore the court that tends to deal with wall street litigation which operates at the federal level and interestingly the the US courts ceded jurisdiction to the Irish courts as a result of an application made in the US courts the US federal court decided that Ireland was a better place for that litigation to run because we were more closely connected with it but I think that's a sign of the reputation which the Irish courts have as well that there was no question that the case would not be as well run in Ireland as it might be in the US that the US corporations would get as much justice or as little as they deserve in the Irish courts as they would in their home courts and that there was no problem in the case being run in Ireland as opposed to the US provided Ireland was more closely associated the witnesses were here and the like I think that is an example of the reputation we have I think that reputation gives us the opportunities which I speak of but they are opportunities and no more to convert them into reality then there are challenges that need to be met and perhaps now is the time that we need to start thinking about putting in place the building blocks to ensure that we are able to exploit those opportunities thank you very much