Determining court jurisdiction

Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis

This Overview provides a summary of different mechanisms by which the courts of England and Wales (English courts) may determine that they have jurisdiction over a dispute. There is a hierarchy as to which jurisdictional approach the courts will take with any international obligations under international conventions taking priority. For information on the different jurisdictional regimes and when they apply between different countries, see Practice Note: Jurisdiction rules.

Which courts have jurisdiction to determine a dispute is only one consideration when dealing with a dispute involving cross border elements. For insight into the different issues that may need to be considered, see: Cross border considerations—checklist.

Determining jurisdiction—international convention

If the UK is a party to an international convention under which a courts jurisdiction is determined, the provisions in that convention must be applied by the English courts.

A key one in this regard is the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements (the 2005 Hague Convention) which was concluded on 30 June 2005 and came into force for the UK by virtue of its membership of the EU on 1 October 2015. Following the UK’s departure from

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

Standards of candour in closed hearings, and corporate witness statements (Attorney General v BBC; R (‘Beth’) v IPT)

Public Law analysis: In reviewing the conduct of MI5 in two sets of High Court proceedings, the court considered the serious implications of the provision of false information in the context of closed proceedings. The court provided an overview of the limited circumstances which justify departure from the principle of open justice pursuant to section 6 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 (‘JSA 2013), acknowledging that the appointment of special advocates mitigates rather than extinguishing the inherent unfairness that arises. In this case, the special advocates, the High Court, and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (‘IPT’) were all misled on a key issue and had made decisions relying upon this misinformation. The court recognised that the safeguards in closed material proceedings are reliant on the high standards of candour of MI5 and expressed the need for a prompt and effective investigation when there is evidence of a departure from this high standard. The importance of compliance with CPR 32 PD, para 18.2, which applies to government departments as well as corporate entities, was also considered (para [173]). Written by Alexandra Scott, barrister at Mountford Chambers.

Minutes of the OPR Committee meeting—9 June 2025

Dispute Resolution analysis: The minutes of the Online Procedure Rule Committee (OPRC) meeting of 9 June 2025 (conducted in a hybrid format at The Rolls Building, Royal Courts of Justice, and via video conference) cover a number of issues including event planning, consultation documents, development of the pre-action model, and drafting of rules relating to property and possession.

Justice Committee publishes report on the work of the County Court

The House of Commons Justice Committee published has published a report, examining the state of the County Court in England and Wales. The Committee found the County Court to be in a state of dysfunction, describing it as the neglected ‘Cinderella service’ of the justice system. The report identifies that average waiting times for small claims cases now exceed 50 weeks, a trend that predates the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and has been exacerbated by increased demand, staffing challenges, and a rise in litigants-in-person. These delays stem from long-standing issues that the Ministry of Justice and HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) have failed to resolve.

No default secrecy for judges’ criticism of bench applicants

Law360, London: The Court of Appeal ruled on 17 July 2025 that sitting judges can continue to give feedback about applicants for judicial office but told the Judicial Appointments Commission it must weigh whether to disclose negative feedback to candidates in each case.

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

Popular documents

Anti-suit injunctions—principles

Anti-suit injunctions—principlesThis Practice Note considers anti-suit injunctions which are a form of injunctive relief used to restrain a party from either commencing or continuing court proceedings. It explains what an anti-suit injunction is and the power of the courts to grant such an

Enforcing foreign judgments—common law principles

Enforcing foreign judgments—common law principlesThis Practice Note considers the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments applying common law. It explains the requirement for new enforcement proceedings in England and Wales with the foreign judgment as the cause of action. The Practice Note

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
Anti-suit injunctions—principles

Anti-suit injunctions—principles

Anti-suit injunctions—principlesThis Practice Note considers anti-suit injunctions which are a form of injunctive relief used to restrain a party from either commencing or continuing court proceedings. It explains what an anti-suit injunction is and the power of the courts to grant such an

Enforcing foreign judgments—common law principles

Enforcing foreign judgments—common law principles

Enforcing foreign judgments—common law principlesThis Practice Note considers the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments applying common law. It explains the requirement for new enforcement proceedings in England and Wales with the foreign judgment as the cause of action. The Practice Note

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