ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note considers the general rule set out in Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) when determining the relevance of a defendant’s domicile to the jurisdiction of the court. It explores when that might be derogated from while providing links through to detailed coverage on specific rules. It also considers the English law position in relation to determining the domicile of both individuals and companies. 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

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note provides guidance when seeking to enforce a default judgment given on the courts of one EU Member State in the jurisdiction of another EU Member State using the enforcement provisions in Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). The Practice Note considers various issues including service of the originating document and the basis on which the judgment may be refused. If seeking to enforce a default judgment from the courts of England and Wales in another EU Member State, or vice-versa, the enforcement provisions in Brussels I (recast) are applicable if the transitional requirements in Article 67(2) of the Withdrawal Agreement have been met ie the proceedings were commenced prior to IP completion day, ie 31 December 2020 at 11 pm. For guidance, see Practice Note: Brexit post implementation period—considerations for dispute resolution practitioners [Archived] including, in particular, main section: Recognition and enforcement of judgments and Practice Note: Brussels I (recast)—application to the UK post IP completion

This Practice Note provides guidance when seeking to enforce a judgment in the courts of England and Wales under the enforcement provisions in Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). Such enforcement can be sought after IP completion day (31 December 2020 at 11 pm) subject to meeting the transitional requirements in Article 67(2) of the Withdrawal Agreement. For guidance on the transitional provisions, see Practice Note: Brexit post implementation period—considerations for dispute resolution practitioners [Archived] including, in particular, main section: Recognition and enforcement of judgments. Where the transitional provisions apply, the rules and practice direction in force immediately before implementation day (ie 31 December 2020 at 11 pm) will continue to be applied. In this Practice Note these are referred to as old Part 74 (with specific rules referenced as ‘old rule’) and old Practice Direction 74A. For guidance, see Practice Note: Brexit post implementation period—CPR changes [Archived]. Copies of the old rule and practice direction are available here: For guidance on whether judgments of the Court of

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note explains Article 24 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 (Brussels I (recast)) which gives the courts of an EU Member State exclusive jurisdiction; irrespective of the defendant’s domicile or any contrary party agreement. The Practice Note covers claims involving immovable property (Article 24(1)), a company’s constitution/corporate governance and validity of actions (Article 24(2)), public registry entries (Article 24(3)), IP rights (Article 24(4)) as well as all proceedings involving the enforcement of judgments (Article 24(5)). This Practice Note includes discussion of the application of Article 24 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), 25, 26, 33 and 34 of Regulation

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note considers the impact on arbitration of the provisions within Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) found in Article 1(2)(d) and Recital (12). Setting out the provisions within Recital (12), the Practice Note considers the changes that have been made to the previous provisions in the precursor to this regulation, Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I. It then provides a series of worked examples to show the practical impact of the changes when dealing with different scenarios which involve an arbitration. 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

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note considers Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) and the jurisdiction of the court when dealing with multiple defendants. The courts of an EU Member State have special jurisdiction to hear a dispute when a co-defendant is not domiciled in the jurisdiction if certain criteria are meet. This Practice Note considers the various criteria and how the courts have applied them in practice. In particular, it considers the meaning of ‘irreconcilable judgments’ and ‘anchor defendants’. The three other situations under Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) are considered in Practice Note: E&W Brussels I (recast)—third parties, counterclaims and rights in rem (art 8) [Archived]. Other special jurisdiction situations, in which the claimant is able to choose to bring proceedings in a different jurisdiction to that of the defendant's domicile, are found in: • Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast), see Practice Notes: E&W Brussels I (recast)—contract claims (Art 7(1))

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note considers the provisions in Article 29 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) which deal with multiple proceedings, specifically parallel proceedings involving the same cause of action and the same parties. The Practice Note considers how the courts deal with these types of proceedings and examples of how such proceedings are dealt with in practice are provided. These provisions were previously found in Article 27 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I. Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) contains some changes to the provisions previously found in Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I, but the case law on Article 27 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I will continue to inform the meaning of Article 29 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, Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 and this

This Practice Note provides guidance when seeking to have a judgment recognised in the courts of England and Wales under the enforcement provisions in Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). Such enforcement can be sought since IP completion day (31 December 2020 at 11 pm) subject to meeting the transitional requirements in Article 67(2) of the Withdrawal Agreement. For guidance on the transitional provisions, see Practice Note: Brexit post implementation period—considerations for dispute resolution practitioners [Archived] including, in particular, main section: Recognition and enforcement of judgments. Where the transitional provisions apply, the rules and practice direction in force immediately before implementation day (ie 31 December 2020 at 11 pm) will continue to be applied. In this Practice Note these are referred to as old Part 74 (with specific rules referenced as ‘old rule’). For guidance, see Practice Note: Brexit post implementation period—CPR changes [Archived]. Copies of the old rule and practice direction are available here: For guidance on whether judgments of the Court of Justice are binding

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note considers the position where related proceedings have been commenced in different jurisdictions within the EU and how the courts of the EU Member States will deal them. Related proceedings are proceedings in which multiple proceedings are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments which would result if separate proceedings were pursued. This Practice Note explains the meaning of ‘related proceedings’ as set out in Article 30 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) and explores the different issues the courts may consider when exercising their discretion to stay proceedings. Another form of multiple proceedings are ‘parallel proceedings’ or ‘lis pendens’. These are addressed in Article 29 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). For guidance on: • parallel proceedings, see Practice Notes: E&W Brussels I (recast)—parallel proceedings (art 29) [Archived] and E&W Brussels I (recast)—the exception to the lis pendens rule (art 31(2)) [Archived].

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note considers Article 25 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) and the requirements that need to be met to show the court there is an effective choice of court agreement between the parties. It provides background information as to the position already adopted by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on such agreements and what changes have been brought into place under the regulation and what that might mean in practice. Equivalent wording to Article 25 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) was found in its predecessors, being Article 17 of the Brussels Convention and Article 23 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I. Cases referenced in this Practice Note therefore include those decided under that convention and regulation as they are relevant to understanding the requirements of Article 25. For general information about choice of court agreements, see Practice Note: E&W Brussels I (recast)—choice

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note looks at the special jurisdiction provisions in Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast), when dealing with different types of claims and disputes. The special jurisdiction under Article 7 enables a claimant to bring proceedings against a defendant in a jurisdiction in which the defendant is not domiciled. Such jurisdiction is non-exclusive and so, if applicable, does not oust the jurisdiction of any other EU Member State. 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

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note considers the exception to the lis pendens rule as set out in Article 31(2) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). This only applies where the parties entered into an exclusive jurisdiction clause, also known as an exclusive choice of court agreement clause—it is not applicable where there is a non-exclusive jurisdiction agreement. Where Article 31(2) applies, the courts provided for in the exclusive jurisdiction clause can continue to determine whether they have jurisdiction notwithstanding that they are not the first court seised of the dispute. 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