Applicable law—foreign law

Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis

This Overview considers issues which may arise in cross-border proceedings in which the court is required to determine the substantive issues by application of a foreign law. For information on determining whether foreign law or the laws of England and Wales apply, see:

  1. •

    Determining applicable law in contractual disputes—overview

  2. •

    Determining applicable law in non-contractual disputes—overview

The applicable law is only one consideration when dealing with a cross border dispute. For insight into the various considerations, see: Cross border considerations—checklist.

Foreign law—what is it and its relevance

Foreign law is generally thought of as laws other than those of England and Wales (English law). However, nuances apply such that it is important to determine whether the courts in which the matter is proceeding will regard the laws to be applied as foreign law. Examples include:

  1. •

    laws of Scotland and Northern Ireland

  2. •

    laws of commonwealth countries

  3. •

    EU law

  4. •

    non national systems of law such as Jewish law

In English court proceedings, foreign law is regarded as a question of fact. It will therefore need to be proved by the use of

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

Existing user? Sign-in TAKE A FREE TRIAL
Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Dispute Resolution News

Without notice orders under the Chabra jurisdiction and the gateways for permission to serve out of the jurisdiction (Gilbert v Broadoak)

Dispute Resolution analysis: This case concerns a worldwide freezing order (WFO) which had been obtained on a without notice basis as against two overseas third parties under the Chabra jurisdiction. At the return hearing, the freezing order was discharged by the High Court, on the basis that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the respondents. The judge held that none of the jurisdictional gateways within CPR PD 6B, para 3.1 applied. As such, and even though there was evidence to the effect that there was a risk of dissipation of funds, the lack of jurisdiction was decisive and led to the discharge of the WFO. The court also considered that there were breaches of the duty of fair presentation at the without notice hearing, but that these were not sufficient in themselves to justify discharging and not continuing (or reimposing) the order. Written by Georgia Whiting, legal counsel (contentious construction), Capita.

Minutes of the OPR Committee meeting—17 November 2025

The minutes of the Online Procedure Rule Committee (OPRC) meeting of 17 November 2025 (conducted in a hybrid format at The Rolls Building (Royal Courts of Justice) and via video conference) cover a number of issues including feedback from the committee’s open meeting, prioritisation of work on the draft Inclusion Framework, possible expansion of the OPRC’s rulemaking powers (including proposals relating to online civil money and damages claims), property and possession rule development (including paper forms for non-digital users), and an update on Residential Property Tribunal digitisation and service coherence.

Court of Appeal confirms narrow scope for post-limitation substitution in wrong defendant cases (Adcamp LLP v Office Properties)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal has ruled that CPR 19.6(3)(b) does not permit substitution of defendants after expiry of the relevant limitation period where such substitution would change the essential facts necessary to establish liability against the substituted defendant. The claimants (respondents in the appeal) had issued proceedings against firms which had acquired the alleged wrongdoers, believing that any liabilities had been transferred. When it emerged (or was at least disputed) that liabilities had not been transferred, they sought to add or substitute the predecessor firm after limitation had expired. The Court of Appeal concluded that CPR 19.6(3)(b) was not engaged since the substitution would change the claim in substance, as an essential element of the case against the original defendant (the pleaded basis for the acquiring firm’s liability) would be replaced by the primary liability claim against the substituted defendant. It was, in effect, a different claim against a different party. The Court of Appeal was clear that any perceived harshness this might cause to claimants could not be mitigated by adopting a broad reading of CPR 19.6(3)(b). Rather, it considered the problem (if any) was caused by earlier binding Court of Appeal authority which had confined the ‘mistake’ gateway in CPR 19.6(3)(a) to errors of name (misnomer) and excluded cases of mistaken legal responsibility/liability (identity). Any solution, if required, would therefore be a matter for the Supreme Court.

193rd Practice Direction update—in force various dates

The Master of the Rolls and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice have approved the 193rd Practice Direction (PD) update to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).

View Dispute Resolution by content type :  
News
Practice notes
Precedents
Q&As

Popular documents

Applicable law—common law (contract)

Applicable law—common law (contract)This Practice Note considers when the common law of England and Wales is applied to determine the law applicable to contract claims. It sets out the process by which the courts of England and Wales will apply the common law to determine which law is applicable to

Determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction

Determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdictionThis Practice Note provides an overview into the issues the court will consider during applications in which a party either seeks to establish or challenge the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales (English courts). There

Hague Service Convention—service outside the jurisdiction

Hague Service Convention—service outside the jurisdictionThis Practice Note considers the Convention on the service abroad of judicial and extra-judicial documents in civil or commercial matters (1965) (the Hague Service Convention). The convention applies between contracting parties and sets out

Retained Rome I—application and interpretation

UK Rome I—application and interpretationThis Practice Note is for use when determining applicable law where the contract was entered into on or after 1 January 2021.For contracts entered into before 1 January 2021, a different applicable law regime will be applied by the UK courts. Which regime is
Applicable law—common law (contract)

Applicable law—common law (contract)

Applicable law—common law (contract)This Practice Note considers when the common law of England and Wales is applied to determine the law applicable to contract claims. It sets out the process by which the courts of England and Wales will apply the common law to determine which law is applicable to

Determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction

Determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction

Determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdictionThis Practice Note provides an overview into the issues the court will consider during applications in which a party either seeks to establish or challenge the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales (English courts). There

Hague Service Convention—service outside the jurisdiction

Hague Service Convention—service outside the jurisdiction

Hague Service Convention—service outside the jurisdictionThis Practice Note considers the Convention on the service abroad of judicial and extra-judicial documents in civil or commercial matters (1965) (the Hague Service Convention). The convention applies between contracting parties and sets out

Retained Rome I—application and interpretation

Retained Rome I—application and interpretation

UK Rome I—application and interpretationThis Practice Note is for use when determining applicable law where the contract was entered into on or after 1 January 2021.For contracts entered into before 1 January 2021, a different applicable law regime will be applied by the UK courts. Which regime is