Brussels I (recast)—domicile (arts 4 and 63)
Brussels I (recast)—domicile (arts 4 and 63)

The following Dispute Resolution guidance note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Brussels I (recast)—domicile (arts 4 and 63)
  • The general rule—the claimant
  • The general rule—defendant
  • Does Article 4 provide a directly enforceable right?
  • Derogation from the general rule
  • Domicile of companies/associations
  • Domicile of trusts

Brexit: The UK's departure from the EU on exit day, ie Friday 31 January 2020, has implications for practitioners considering jurisdiction. For guidance, see: Cross border considerations—checklist—Jurisdiction—Brexit specific.

This Practice Note considers the general rule set out in Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) when determining the relevance of a defendant’s domicile to the jurisdiction of the court. It explores when that might be derogated from while providing links through to detailed coverage on specific rules. It also considers the English law position in relation to determining the domicile of both individuals and companies.

Note: determining the domicile of a defendant will also be important in determining whether service of the claim form out of the jurisdiction will be necessary although permission of the court is not required if the claim falls within Brussels I (recast), see Practice Note: Serving outside the jurisdiction without court permission.

The general rule—the claimant

Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) does not include a general rule dependent on the claimant's domicile. However, in some instances the domicile of the claimant will be of relevance in determining whether a court has jurisdiction. An example can be seen in relation to insurance disputes where Article 11 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) provides an exception to the general rule so that a defendant