This Practice Note covers general considerations when making an application to challenge the court’s jurisdiction under CPR 11. It also considers the implications of successful and unsuccessful applications. This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Challenging court jurisdiction—general principles, in particular whether an application is required. It can be difficult to interpret the provisions in CPR 11. For example, as noted by the Privy Council in Texan Management Ltd v Pacific Electric Wire and Cable Company Ltd (2009), CPR 11(1) is ‘inelegantly and inconsistently drafted’ as to what it is intended to cover. Authorities, which have considered the interpretation of CPR 11, provide an important insight as to the approach the courts will take when dealing with applications under Part 11. For guidance on other aspects of challenging court jurisdiction, see Practice Notes: • Challenging court jurisdiction—requirement to notify the court • Challenging court jurisdiction—application under CPR 11 (timing and extensions of time) • Challenging court jurisdiction—has a party submitted to a jurisdiction? • Challenging court jurisdiction—appeals Also

This Practice Note considers the time limits for making an application under CPR 11 to challenge the court’s jurisdiction. It sets out when parties may agree an extension of time for making the application. It then explains how to make an application to the court to extend time where such agreement is not forthcoming or has expired. Throughout, it provides guidance on the interpretation and application of relevant provisions of the CPR. This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Challenging court jurisdiction—general principles. For other documents providing insights on different issues which may arise when challenging the court’s jurisdiction, see: Practical consideration: court guides may contain guidance in this area. Where the matter is progressing in a court that has a court guide, the guide should be consulted to see whether there is any relevant guidance which should then be adhered to. For information, see: Court specific guidance below. Timing for making an application An application to challenge the court's jurisdiction must be made within a specific

This Practice Note sets out examples of the ways in which a defendant may voluntarily submit to the English court’s jurisdiction. It also considers whether there is submission if the defendant has been ordered by the court to take such action. For guidance on determining whether a party has submitted to the court’s jurisdiction, see Practice Note: Challenging court jurisdiction—has a party submitted to a jurisdiction? Service of the defence A defendant who serves a defence in the proceedings will be taken to have submitted to the English court’s jurisdiction. An exception applies when the court has ordered the defendant to serve their defence. This will not be taken as submission and therefore will not affect the ability of the defendant to bring a jurisdictional challenge. The authorities in this area were considered by the Court of Appeal in Deutsche Bank AG London Branch v Petromena ASA (2015). In Ablynx NV v Vhsquared (2019), the claimant had applied for an order that the defendant serve its defence. The judge, considering

This Practice Note covers the general principles to consider when challenging or disputing the court’s jurisdiction. A challenge may be brought on the basis that either the court does not have territorial jurisdiction or, where it does, that the court should exercise its discretion not to accept jurisdiction in the matter, eg on the basis of forum non conveniens. The grounds available for challenging the court’s jurisdiction are considered as well as whether a stay must or may be sought in favour of proceedings commenced in a country outside the UK. The Practice Note identifies how to make a challenge either prior to or following commencement of proceedings and explains what is meant by the term ‘jurisdiction’ for the purposes of CPR 11. It also covers challenging court jurisdiction within the UK as well as the interplay between CPR 11 and the Defamation Act 2013 (DA 2013). For detailed guidance on issues relevant when dealing with challenging court jurisdiction, see Practice Notes: • Challenging court jurisdiction—has a party submitted to a jurisdiction? • Challenging court jurisdiction—application

This Practice Note is one of a series looking at challenging the court’s jurisdiction. It considers whether a defendant making such a challenge has in fact submitted to the courts of England and Wales such that a challenge is not available to them. CPR 11 sets out the rules for a defendant to dispute the jurisdiction of the English courts but a prerequisite is that the rules are not applicable where a defendant has already submitted to the courts’ jurisdiction. The rules on submission are therefore important and are set out in CPR 11(5) and CPR 11(8) as well as the common law dealing with wavier (the defendant waives the right to challenge). Also considered is the issue of whether the claimant has in fact submitted to the jurisdiction of a foreign court such that the dispute should be dealt with in that foreign court. The Practice Note does not consider the claimant on the basis that by commencing the proceedings, the claimant has submitted to the court’s jurisdiction.

This Practice Note considers the requirement under CPR 11(2) for a defendant to notify the court that it intends to challenge the court’s jurisdiction by filing an acknowledgment of service. It also considers issues arising where the acknowledgment of service is filed late or where there are multiple defendants. Requirement to notify the court Before making an application to challenge the court’s jurisdiction, a defendant is required to first file an acknowledgment of service to notify the court of its intention (CPR 11(2)). For guidance, see Practice Note: Acknowledgment of service—completing the form—Defendant intends to contest the court’s jurisdiction. Late filing of acknowledgment of service Where the defendant has been validly served but is late in filing its acknowledgment of service, there is an unresolved issue as to whether the defendant requires relief from sanctions, a retrospective extension of time or both, before it can rely on that acknowledgment of service for the purposes of CPR 11(2). In Wei v Long (2025), the fourth defendant filed its acknowledgment of service 44 days late and filed

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: Liberty Leasing Ltd (Liberty) successfully challenged, under rule 15.35 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024, creditor proofs that had determined the outcome of a bankruptcy creditor decision procedure. The court held that it determines the alleged indebtedness afresh, with each creditor bearing the burden of proving its debt on the balance of probabilities; the chair’s prior admission of a proof carries no evidential weight. Most disputed claims, including substantial compound interest, failed for want of reliable evidence, although one creditor proved £236,000 principal. The decision emphasises the need to adduce available contemporaneous documents and first-hand evidence and confirms IR 2016, SI 2016/1024, r 15.35 as an effective mechanism for exposing artificial claims capable of distorting creditor control. Produced in partnership with Samuel Hodge of Enterprise Chambers.

Corporate Crime analysis: The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, pronounced its preliminary ruling on an important point of jurisdiction concerning claims in judicial review brought against decisions of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC). Although refusing permission to appeal on the real merits of the various grounds of challenge, Lord Justice Bean, gave permission for the decision to be cited. Written by Abigail Bright, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers.

This Practice Note considers appeals against decisions made by the communications regulator in the UK, Ofcom. In this context, it takes account of relevant UK law, considers the establishment and functions of Ofcom and the ways in which Ofcom’s regulatory decisions may be challenged at the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) (and subsequently the Court of Appeal), and/or the High Court. Applicable legislation The UK legislation is based on the EU regulatory framework on electronic communications (the Framework), which was originally established in 2002 with the aim of strengthening competition by facilitating market entry and stimulating investment in the electronic communications sector. The Framework consisted of a number of directives, including Directive 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (the Framework Directive). This was supported by Directive 2002/20/EC (the Authorisation Directive), Directive 2002/19/EC (the Access Directive), Directive 2002/22/EC (the Universal Services Directive) and Directive 2002/58/EC (the ePrivacy Directive). In 2009, these directives were amended by Directive 2009/140/EC (the Better Regulation Directive) and Directive 2009/136/EC (the Citizens’ Rights Directive). The

STOP PRESS: This Practice Note is being updated to take account of the introduction of a 24–week statutory framework for appeals lodged on or after 12 August 2026 by appellants receiving asylum accommodation support, and non-detained appellants who are liable to deportation under section 3(5)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971 (IA 1971). See: LNB News 14/08/2026 4 and reg 2 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 (Commencement No 5) Regulations 2026, SI 2026/766. The new framework is being underpinned by a new Practice Direction. Note also that the Government’s Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026 would establish a new Independent Immigration Appeals Authority to replace the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). See News Analysis: A guide to the Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026. This Practice Note outlines issues specific to appeals and other challenges to deportation decisions. It also covers certification of asylum and human rights challenges to deportation, suspensive and non-suspensive appeal rights, as well as applications to

Arbitration analysis: Mr Justice Foxton in the Commercial Court determined, following a trial of disputed factual issues, that the claimant was entitled to enforce a consent award made by a sole arbitrator in a London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) arbitration pursuant to section 66 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). The claimant’s leave to enforce the consent award had previously been set aside on the grounds that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the acceleration provisions of the consent award had been triggered. There were two issues—(i) as a matter of law, whether the court had jurisdiction to decide matters of fact in relation to the enforcement of the consent award, and (ii) as a matter of fact, had the acceleration provisions been triggered. In short, the English court held that it had jurisdiction and that the acceleration had been triggered. Written by Andrew Rigden Green, partner, co-head of International Arbitration in Asia, at Stephenson Harwood, Hong Kong.

This Checklist should be read in conjunction with Practice Notes: Mutual legal assistance (MLA) and Grounds for refusing assistance by the requested authority. The Letter of Request (LOR) Requests from the UK for mutual legal assistance (MLA) are made by a formal letter of request (LOR). The judicial authorities in the UK which may request assistance under the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 (C(IC)A 2003) are any judge or justice of the peace in England and Wales. A prosecution authority which has been designated by an order of the Secretary of State may also request assistance if the following conditions in C(IC)A 2003, s 7(5) are satisfied: • it appears to the authority that offence has been committed or there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed, and • the authority has instituted proceedings in respect of the offence in question or the offence is being investigated Issuing authority Considering the LOR itself: • Was the LOR issued by a judge or by a prosecuting