This Practice Note considers how to make an application to set aside an order granting permission to serve the claim form outside England and Wales. The application must be made as a challenge to the court’s jurisdiction under CPR 11. The rationale for this requirement is explained and guidance on making the application provided. The Practice Note looks at the different considerations from the perspective of both the defendant, making an application, and the claimant, opposing such an application. Whether the claimant may rely on different/alternative gateways to those originally relied on is also considered. This Practice Note does not deal with the situation in which the claimant is permitted to serve the claim form outside England and Wales without the court’s permission. The defendant will be aware that permission was not required as the claimant must serve the defendant with a completed Form N510 which sets out the basis on which the claimant considers that the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction. If the

This Practice Note provides illustrative cases in which the courts have considered whether to grant a stay of proceedings in a cross-border dispute under case management powers. Given that the courts will exercise their discretionary powers to order a stay of court proceedings, the approach of the court will depend on the specific circumstances of the case before it. For guidance on staying proceedings in cross-border disputes, which includes the key court decisions, see Practice Note: Cross-border stay of proceedings—principles. Illustrative decisions in which a stay was granted Judgments and News Analysis Comment Cheyne European Special Situations Fund Investments SCA v TMF Trustee Ltd [2026] EWHC 2091 (Ch) at paras [44]–[102]6 August 2026See News Analysis: Case management stay for parallel New York proceedings (Cheyne European Special Situations Fund Investments v TMF Trustee) The claimants pursued related proceedings in England and New York concerning an up-tiering transaction and subsequent enforcement under an intercreditor agreement.The court applied the single ‘interests of justice’ test for a case management stay. A stay was justified

This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Stay of civil proceedings—when can you apply to stay a claim? which sets out the general considerations when seeking a stay of proceedings. This Practice Note considers the powers of the court to stay proceedings in the courts of England and Wales (referred to as the English courts for convenience) in favour of the dispute being determined either by the courts of another country or by arbitration. For illustrative decisions, see Practice Note: Cross-border stay of proceedings—illustrative decisions involving case management decisions. What is a stay of proceedings? A stay of court proceedings involves an order of the court imposing a standstill of the proceedings. During the period of the stay: • no steps or work is taken by the parties or their legal teams for the purposes of the English proceedings, unless specifically provided for in the order for a stay • a party may make an application to have the stay lifted • the parties can pursue or commence foreign court proceedings during which

This Practice Note is based on the guidance in CPR PD 6B and the accompanying table setting out the number of days by which documents in proceedings need to be filed when the particulars of claim have been served outside England and Wales. It considers filing of the acknowledgement of service, admission, defence and response to an application. Note, due to the time periods being determined by reference to the particulars of claim, the time periods are not applicable when dealing with Part 8 claims for which particulars of claim are not generally required. This is the subject of a judicial consultation, see Practice Note: Tracker—changes to Part 6 and practice directions 6A and 6B. Rules for determining the period for responding to the claim form The period of time for responding to the claim form will depend on whether the claim form is being served with or without the court’s permission. Without court permission The claim form may be served in certain circumstances without the permission of the court under

This Practice Note considers the requirement for a ‘good arguable case’ which must be met to establish that the English courts have jurisdiction to determine a dispute. For there to be a good arguable case, the claim(s) must fall within at least one of the jurisdictional gateways set out in CPR PD 6B, para 3.1. This requirement only applies in cases in which permission to serve out of the jurisdiction is being sought (or was obtained if the defendant is seeking to challenge the court’s jurisdiction). It is not applicable in cases in which permission is not required, for example under the provisions in CPR 6.32 and CPR 6.33 or under the parallel service regime set out in the Companies Act 2006, as explained Titan Wealth Services Ltd v Tavistock Investments PLC (2025). Note that part of that decision was successfully appealed, but the parts dealing with jurisdiction were not affected. For guidance on the general principles applicable to jurisdictional gateways, see Practice Note: Cross-border service—jurisdictional gateways (principles) which also links out to detailed guidance

This Practice Note considers the requirement for a ‘serious issue to be tried’ which must be met to establish that the English courts have jurisdiction to determine a dispute. This requirement only applies in cases in which permission to serve out of the jurisdiction is being sought (or was obtained if the defendant is seeking to challenge the court’s jurisdiction). It is not applicable in cases in which permission is not required, for example under the provisions in CPR 6.32 and CPR 6.33 or under the parallel service regime set out in the Companies Act 2006, as explained Titan Wealth Services Ltd v Tavistock Investments PLC (2025). Note that part of that decision was successfully appealed, but the parts dealing with jurisdiction were not affected. Alongside the serious issue to be tried requirement, the claimant will need to show that it has a good arguable case and that England and Wales is the proper place for the dispute to be determined (forum conveniens). For guidance, see Practice Note: Determining whether the courts of England

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: Mr Justice Hildyard sanctioned inter-conditional Part 26A restructuring plans for TG Jones, using cross-class cram down despite opposition from most landlord classes. The court confirmed the established ‘landlord plan’ architecture, including classification by store economics, differentiated rent compromises and creditor treatment, but subjected sponsor equity retention and related-party value extraction to close scrutiny. Sanction was supported by negotiated protections, including secured rent deferral, enhanced profit sharing, reinvestment undertakings and restrictions on shareholder leakage. The judgment is significant for its treatment of deferred rent as a compromise rather than new money, its emphasis on evidencing fair allocation of restructuring surplus, and its warning that cram-down timetables must allow for judicial consideration. Produced in partnership with Justin Perring of New Square Chambers.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The High Court sanctioned Poundland Ltd's restructuring plan under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006), applying its cross-class cram down powers despite significant landlord dissent. Sir Alastair Norris held that the statutory 'no worse off' and 'economic interest' tests were satisfied and that the plan's benefit allocation was fair and commercially justified. The judgment reinforces recent appellate guidance (including Adler, Thames Water, and Petrofac) on fairness, differential treatment, and creditor engagement, confirming that courts will prioritise genuine rescue efforts over objections driven by extraneous or self-interested motives. Practical implications written by Elaine Nolan, partner of Keystone Law.

Questioning of a witness by a party other than the party who called the witness.

Questioning of a witness by a party other than the party who called the witness.

The High Court has granted an application for the cross-examination of two defendants as a result of serious questions marks over the accuracy and credibility of disclosure by them pursuant to disclosure orders. This is an unusual step but one the court felt in these circumstances was ‘just and convenient’ in order to give proper effect to the disclosure orders and in light of the defendants’ dubious responses to date.

Family analysis: This judgment of the President of the Family Division provides guidance in the event that the court has directed that a qualified legal representative (QLR) should be appointed for a party in accordance with Part IVB of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (MFPA 1984), but no QLR can be found. The court must decide whether to ask questions on behalf of a party itself and, in that event, guidance is given as to how to do so without being drawn ‘into the arena’ and losing the ‘advantage of calm and dispassionate observation’. Despite hopes for more QLRs to be available, there remains an acute shortage and with increasing numbers of litigants in person many courts are faced with the dilemma of whether, in the interests of justice, to step into this ‘unnatural and tricky’ role. Shaili Gohil-Desai, solicitor at Burgess Mee Family Law, examines the issues.