This Practice Note considers the cross-border service and claims involving digital assets such as cryptocurrency or non-fungible tokens (NFTs). The law and procedure dealing with disputes involving digital assets is relatively new and constantly evolving. When considering issues of service, the area is the subject of a Law Commission consultation as well as emerging, and sometimes conflicting, authorities. It is therefore important to have an understanding of the current position when seeking to serve a claim form in proceedings involving digital assets. What are digital assets? There is no specific definition for a ‘digital asset’. However, The Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025, which came into force on 2 December 2025, provides that an asset which is digital or electronic in nature can be property: ‘A thing (including a thing that is digital or electronic in nature) is not prevented from being the object of personal property rights merely because it is neither— (a) a thing in possession, nor (b) a thing in action.’ A key difficulty in cross-border disputes has

This Practice Note provides an introduction to the general principles to be considered when seeking to rely on jurisdictional service gateways. It looks at what is a jurisdictional service gateway, what date the jurisdictional gateway must apply and how the gateway is satisfied. It then sets out where the jurisdictional gateways can be found and provides a list of these, together with links through to the relevant part of CPR PD 6B, para 3.1 for each gateway, the dates on which gateways came into force/gateways were substituted/gateways were deleted as well as providing links to specific guidance on the specific gateway. The Practice Note then considers what is required to show that a jurisdictional gateway applies as well as how to interpret a jurisdictional gateway. This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction, which sets out the three main requirements a claimant will need to meet when requesting the court’s permission to serve out the claim form outside England and Wales. The second

This Practice Note sets out specific types of claims and considers which jurisdictional gateway(s) may be appropriate when seeking permission to serve a claim form out of the jurisdiction. This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Cross-border service—jurisdictional gateways (principles). Breach of confidence claims Prior to October 2015, difficulties were encountered when determining which gateway a breach of confidence claim would fall within. This was resolved on 1 October 2015, when gateway 21 came into force as it specifically applies when dealing with claims for breach of confidence and misuse of private information. For guidance, see Practice Note: Cross-border service—jurisdictional gateways 21–23 (breach of confidence/misuse of information). Claims involving digital assets The law and procedure dealing with disputes involving digital assets is relatively new and constantly evolving. When considering issues of service, it is important to have an understanding of the current position when looking to serve a claim form in proceedings involving digital assets. For guidance, see Practice Note: Cross-border service—jurisdictional gateways (claims involving digital assets). Defamation

This Practice Note considers the general jurisdiction gateways that may apply regardless of the type of claim being made excluding the injunction gateway (the general grounds). They cover claims in which the remedy sought is against a person domiciled in England and Wales (gateway 1), a claim is made against a person in respect of a dispute arising out of the operations of a branch, agency or other establishment (gateway 1A), the claim is an additional claim under Part 20 and the person to be served is a necessary or proper party to either the claim or the additional claim (gateway 4) and the claim is an ancillary claim involving the same or closely related facts as the main claim (gateway 4A). The injunction gateway (gateway 2) is considered in Practice Note: Cross-border service—jurisdictional gateways 2 and 5 (injunctions and interim remedies). This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Cross-border service—jurisdictional gateways (principles). Gateway 1—the remedy is against a person domiciled in England and Wales Gateway

This Practice Note considers the application of general jurisdiction gateway 2 which covers an injunction sought to require or restrain an act in England and Wales. It also considers gateway 5 which may apply if making a claim for an interim remedy. Gateway 2—injunctions Gateway 2 (CPR PD 6B, para 3.1(2)) provides that: ‘The claimant may serve a claim form out of the jurisdiction with the permission of the court under rule 6.36 where: (2) A claim is made for an injunction ordering the defendant to do or refrain from doing an act within the jurisdiction.’ The CPR Glossary defines an ‘injunction’ as being: ‘A court order prohibiting a person from doing something or requiring a person to do something.’ For guidance about injunctions, see Practice Note: Injunctions—guiding principles. What is the remit of the word 'injunction'? When determining the remit of the word ‘injunction’ in gateway 2, the following should be considered: • the injunction being sought must be a bona fide part of the substantive claim being made.

This Practice Note considers the jurisdictional service gateways or grounds for service set out in CPR PD 6B, paras 3.1(21)–(23) dealing with claims for breach of confidence/misuse of information. The Practice Note sets out the gateways and provides insight into the way in which they have, or may be, interpreted by the courts. This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Cross border service—jurisdictional gateways (principles). For guidance on the underlying claim to protect confidential information, see: Protecting confidential information—overview. Note that where the requirements for gateway 21 have been met and a further claim is made against the same defendant that arises out of the same or closely connected facts, the further claim may fall within gateway (4B). For guidance, see Practice Note: Cross border service—jurisdiction gateways (general grounds)—A further claim arises out of the same or closely relate facts—gateway 4A. Claims for breach of confidence or misuse of private information—gateway 21 Gateway 21 (CPR PD 6B, para 3.1(21)) provides: ‘Claims for breach of confidence or misuse of private

This Practice Note considers jurisdictional service gateways or grounds for service set out in CPR PD 6B, para 3.1(6)–3.1(8) dealing with contract claims. The Practice Note sets out the contract gateways and provides insight into the way in which they have been interpreted by the courts. When considering these gateways, it should be noted that: • they have undergone a number of amendments and care should therefore be taken when referring to any older authorities. For details, see Practice Note: Tracker—changes to Part 6 and practice directions 6A and 6B • the number of gateways has been expanded over time and older authorities may deal with circumstances in which a new gateway would now be more appropriate This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Cross-border service—jurisdictional gateways (principles). Claims in relation to contracts—general A number of different gateways may apply when seeking permission to serve a claim form outside England and Wales for claims in relation to contracts: • Claims in respect of a contract—gateway 6 below • Claims made

This Practice Note summarises the methods for effecting service of a claim form or other documents outside the jurisdiction. In relation to England and Wales, it sets out the relevant CPR rules and factors that will need to be considered. There are a number of different ways of approaching service out of the jurisdiction. This Practice Note provides an overview of these methods together with information on some of the issues to consider when determining which method to use. This Practice Note does not deal with questions of jurisdiction or the question of whether the court’s permission is needed before documents can be served outside the jurisdiction. Before considering how to serve outside the jurisdiction, these issues will need to be addressed and reference should be made to the following Practice Notes: Cross-border service—a guide for dispute resolution practitioners and Cross-border service—is permission required to serve a defendant who is outside England and Wales? For guidance when serving on a State, see Practice Note: Cross-border service—service on a State. Practical considerations:

This Practice Note considers service on a State of documents required to institute proceedings. When serving on a State, section 12(1) of the State Immunity Act 1978 (SIA 1978) imposes mandatory requirements for documents required to be served. CPR 6.44 provides the procedural route through the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO). SIA 1978, s 12(5) separately requires a copy of a judgment given in default of appearance to be transmitted through the FCDO to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the State. Where a document does not institute proceedings, SIA 1978, s 12 does not apply. Its service is governed by the CPR and CPR 6.44 provides a specific route for service on a State, but the court may also authorise or validate service of a document other than the claim form by an alternative method or at an alternative place under CPR 6.27. Meaning of ‘State’ The meaning of ‘State’ is set out in SIA 1978, s 14(1) and can include: • the sovereign or other head of that State in their public capacity

This Practice Note considers service of a claim form issued by the courts of England and Wales on a defendant domiciled in either Scotland or Northern Ireland. When serving in a defendant’s solicitor, permission to serve the claim form is not required if the requirements in CPR 6.7(2) are met. If serving on the defendant, permission is not required if there is compliance with the requirements in CPR 6.32. For cases in which those requirements are not met, the claimant will need to seek the court’s permission to serve the claim form out of the jurisdiction (CPR 6.37). Court permission is not required—service on the defendant’s solicitor The court’s permission is not required to serve a claim form on a defendant’s solicitor if the criteria in CPR 6.7(2) are met. The provisions in CPR 6.7(2) apply if serving on a defendant's solicitor whose business address is in Scotland or Northern Ireland. Note that this is subject to provisions in Section IV of Part 6 and any other rule or Practice Direction that

This Practice Note considers service of documents out of the jurisdiction where the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction under the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. It explains when the claim form may be served without the court’s permission under CPR 6.33(2B)(a), the documents that must accompany service and the methods by which service may be effected outside the jurisdiction. The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements applies in international cases to exclusive choice of court agreements concluded in civil or commercial matters. It regulates the jurisdiction of the chosen court, the obligations of a court that has not been chosen and the recognition and enforcement of judgments given by the chosen court. Its application is subject to the scope provisions and exclusions in the convention. For guidance about the convention itself, see Practice Notes: Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements—scope and Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements—jurisdiction. The convention is only in force for a limited number of

This Practice Note considers service of documents from England and Wales on a defendant domiciled in an EU Member State. Summary of the issues to be considered When serving documents out of the jurisdiction in an EU Member State it will be necessary to consider the following: • whether there is a contractual agreement between the parties to serve documents in the jurisdiction. For guidance, see: Contractually agreed method of service below • whether permission is required to serve out of the jurisdiction. For guidance, see: Is the court’s permission required? below • the process required to effect service of documents. For guidance, see: The process required to effect service of documents below • practical considerations. For guidance, see: Practical considerations when serving under the Hague Service Convention below Contractually agreed method of service When considering service of documents out of the jurisdiction, one of the first considerations should be whether the parties have entered into a contractual service clause. Such a clause can provide for the method for service or