Jurisdiction rules

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

  • Jurisdiction rules
  • Relevant jurisdiction regimes
  • Other jurisdictional regimes
  • Which jurisdictional regime is applicable?
  • Illustrative examples to show which regime may be applicable

Jurisdiction rules

In international litigation, there may be a dispute between the parties as to where, ie in which jurisdiction, the dispute between them should be heard. It is therefore important for practitioners to be aware that specific rules apply when determining which court has jurisdiction to hear the dispute. The fact that the UK has left the EU will also have an impact on which jurisdiction rules will be applied by the courts of England and Wales when determining which courts have jurisdiction.

Relevant jurisdiction regimes

The main jurisdictional regimes of relevance to Dispute Resolution practitioners are the following:

  1. Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements—applied by contracting states to the convention. For guidance, see: Jurisdiction (international regime)—overview

  2. Common law—applied by the courts of England and Wales to determine whether the court has jurisdiction when considering an application for permission to serve the claim form out of the jurisdiction under CPR 6 or when there is a challenge to the court’s jurisdiction under CPR 11. For guidance, see Practice Notes:

    1. Determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction—key requirements

    2. Serving outside the jurisdiction with court permission—jurisdictional gateways

    3. Forum non conveniens—scope and application

    4. Forum non conveniens—connecting factors

    5. Forum non conveniens—requirement for justice

Other jurisdictional regimes

The UK's departure from the EU has implications for practitioners considering which courts have jurisdiction. Prior to Brexit, the UK courts applied

Popular documents