Law360, London: Appliance manufacturer Dyson has lost its dispute to keep a forced labour case out of England, as a London appeals court ruled on 13 December 2024 that claims that migrant workers were abused in Malaysian factories should be heard in Britain.

Law360, London: A group of workers suing Dyson over alleged forced labour when they made components at Malaysian factories have settled their claim against the electronics manufacturer, their lawyers said on 26 February 2026.

MLex: Dyson has won an injunction against Dreame’s hair styler at the Unified Patent Court (UPC), with judges finding infringement and extending relief to Spain via an EU-based importer. The court refused UK coverage, clarifying limits of cross-border jurisdiction as broader questions remain pending before the Court of Justice.

Law360, London: Dyson has persuaded the Unified Patent Court (UPC) to stop a Hong Kong-based rival from selling its hair-curler products in Spain, further demonstrating the court's willingness to issue injunctions outside the unitary system.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note considers the impact of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) where there are identical or related proceedings pending before the courts of a non-EU Member State (or third state as they are often known). The relevant provisions in the regulation are Articles 33 and 34 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). This Practice Note includes discussion of the application of relevant provisions in the regulation to the UK as a third state following its departure from the EU (subject to the application of transitional provisions in the Withdrawal Agreement). For general guidance on these articles, as well as the other provisions of the regulation that are relevant to third states, namely Articles 18(1), 21(2), 24, 25 and 26 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast), see Practice Note: E&W Brussels I (recast)—application to third states [Archived]. Impact of UK’s departure from the EU Following exit

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note considers the provisions in Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) dealing with the submission of a defendant to the jurisdiction. Articles 26 and 28 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) set out provisions to determine whether a defendant has submitted to the court’s jurisdiction. The fundamental requirement is that the defendant must enter an ‘appearance’. The meaning of ‘an appearance’ as well as the practicalities involved are explored. If the defendant does not enter an appearance, there may be no submission to the jurisdiction and the court may stay the proceedings. This is considered along with the practical issues, which arise when considering whether the defendant has received sufficient information to enter an appearance (Article 28 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast)). This Practice Note also includes discussion of the application of Article 26 to the UK as a non-EU Member State (or a third state as they are often known)

This Practice Note considers Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) and what matters it will be applied to, as well as what specific matters are set out as being excluded by the regulation. It sets out transitional arrangements, international requirements and what constitutes civil and commercial matters. Impact of UK’s departure from the EU Following exit day (ie 31 January 2020), the UK became a third state in respect of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). As a result of transitional provisions in the Withdrawal Agreement between the UK and the EU, the UK remained subject to Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) during the implementation period, which began on exit day and ended on IP completion day (ie 31 December 2020, at 11 pm). The position post IP completion day requires consideration of the specific provisions of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) that can be applied in respect of third states, as well as of the ongoing application of relevant transitional provisions. For detailed guidance on the extent to which the

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note considers the application of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) to disputes involving non-EU Member States (often known as third states). It sets out the various provisions in this regulation that can apply to situations involving third states, all of which concern jurisdiction, and discusses the impact for the UK in the application of those provisions following its departure from the EU. Definitions This Practice Note using a number of definitions: • European Communities Act 1972—ECA 1972 • European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018—EU(W)A 2018 • European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020—EU(WA)A 2020 • exit day—is defined in EU(W)A 2018, s 20, as 31 January 2020 at 11 pm • Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements concluded on 30 June 2005 at The Hague—the Hague Convention • implementation period—is defined in EU(WA)A 2020, s 1 as the ‘transition or implementation period provided for by Part 4 of the withdrawal agreement and beginning with exit day and

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note explains choice of court agreements, as set out in Article 25 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). It covers a range of issues such as derogation, when Article 25 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) does not apply, whether hybrid agreements are covered, the effect on non-EU parties and the requirements for a valid choice of court agreement. It also covers the hearing and the standard of proof required. This Practice Note includes discussion of the application of Article 25 to the UK as a non-EU Member State (or a third state as they are often known) following its departure from the EU (subject to the application of transitional provisions in the Withdrawal Agreement). For general guidance on the application of this article to third states, as well as the other provisions of the regulation that are relevant to third states, namely Articles 18(1), 21(2), 24, 26, 33 and 34 of Regulation (EU)

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note explains how contract claims are dealt with under Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). It considers the connecting factors required, the characteristics of the contract in terms of obligations, the place of performance and place of delivery. It also distinguishes between sale of goods and provision of services contracts. The provisions dealing with contract claims are set out in Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast), previously Article 5 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I. The recast of the regulation resulted in some changes to the provisions, but the Court of Justice’s interpretation of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I should be observed when considering the interpretation of Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) and its application. This can be seen from recital 34, of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) which emphasises a need for continuity. It provides that: ‘Continuity between the 1968 Brussels Convention,

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note considers the court’s jurisdiction when dealing with consumer contracts as set out in Articles 17–19 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) which makes up Section 4 of the regulation. This section provides added protection for consumers given that they are regarded as the weaker party in a dispute. The general rule is that the consumer can bring proceedings in the EU Member State in which they are domiciled even if the defendant is domiciled elsewhere. It is important to be aware of the definition of a ‘consumer’ and the difficulties that may arise when determining the application of the provisions. For guidance on whether these provisions continue to apply, given that the UK has left the EU, see Impact of UK’s departure from the EU below. Note that the provisions in Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) were new and there was no equivalent provision in Regulation (EC)

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note is of assistance when seeking to determine which EU Member state’s courts have jurisdiction to hear an insurance claim. Specifically, it addresses the reforms in Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) as they relate to insurance matters. These are set out in the regulation at Chapter II, Section 3 in Articles 10–15. This Practice Note considers the general rule that a defendant should be sued in the country in which they are domiciled and exemptions to that general rule when dealing with an insured who is regarded as the weaker party. The position where parties are on an equal footing is also explored. Additional protection, where there might otherwise be tacit prorogation of jurisdiction, is considered as is the impact of an agreed jurisdiction clause in an insurance dispute. This Practice Note contains Court of Justice decisions which post date the UK’s departure from the EU. For