Disputing the court's jurisdiction
Disputing the court's jurisdiction

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

  • Disputing the court's jurisdiction
  • What is meant by the term’ jurisdiction’?
  • Preventing proceedings being commenced
  • Grounds for disputing the court's jurisdiction
  • Requesting that the court does not exercise its jurisdiction
  • Disputing jurisdiction within the UK
  • What procedure must be followed?
  • Notifying intention to dispute the court's jurisdiction
  • Failure to notify intention to dispute the court’s jurisdiction—deemed/inadvertent submission
  • When must an application be made?
  • more

The UK has voted to leave the EU and this will take place on exit day as defined in section 20 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This has implications for practitioners considering which courts have jurisdiction to determine a dispute. For guidance, see Practice Note: Brexit—jurisdiction. For links to relevant guidance on the effect of the UK leaving the EU without a deal when dealing with matters of jurisdiction, see: Cross border considerations—checklist—Jurisdiction—Brexit specific.

On 10 January 2015, Regulation 44/2001, Brussels I was repealed in its entirety and replaced by Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). Transitional arrangements are place. For information on those arrangements and whether the provisions in Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I still apply, see Practice Note: Brussels I (recast)—application and exclusions.

What is meant by the term’ jurisdiction’?

The definition of the word ‘jurisdiction’ in the CPR is not exhaustive and has two different meanings:

  1. territorial jurisdiction, or

  2. court’s power or authority

The Court of Appeal in Hoddinott v Persimmon Homes (Wessex) Limited held that the word ‘jurisdiction’ in CPR 11 does not denote territorial jurisdiction but rather is a reference to the court's power or authority to try a claim.

However, the Privy Council in Texan Management Ltd v Pacific Electric Wire & Cable Company Ltd disagreed, considering that CPR 11(1) makes it clear that