This Practice Note considers evidencing foreign law in proceedings in the courts of England and Wales. It considers the different forms of evidence and how that may be brought before the court. For guidance on foreign law generally, see Practice Note: Foreign law—guide for dispute resolution practitioners. This Practice Note refers to the decision in MacMillan Inc v Bishopsgate Investment Trust Plc (No 4) (1998). Note that in some judgments it has been referenced as MCC Proceeds Inc v Bishopsgate Investment Trust. Proving foreign law If foreign law applies to a dispute and a party has pleaded foreign law, the foreign law must be proven as fact. In the English courts, foreign law is treated as a question of fact which the court must determine on the basis of the evidence. This principle was reiterated by the Court of Appeal in Bumper Development Corp v Metropolitan Police Commission (1991). Foreign law must be proved as the established rule is that a knowledge of the foreign law will not be imputed to the English judiciary even if

This Practice Note considers whether a party is required to plead foreign law in proceedings before the courts of England and Wales. It explains when a party must raise a point of foreign law, when it may choose not to do so and which party is responsible for pleading it. It also considers the consequences where foreign law is not pleaded, including the application of English law under the default rule. The Practice Note addresses how foreign law should be pleaded, late amendments, the court’s power to require amendment and whether reliance on the presumption of similarity must itself be pleaded. Deciding whether to plead foreign law In cases in which the applicable law is a foreign law, whether for the entirety of the dispute or for one or more specific issues, each party will need to consider whether they want to place any reliance on the foreign law. If they do, the burden is on that party to plead the point of foreign law in their statement of case, such requirement

This Practice Note considers the courts’ approach to appeals on a point of foreign law. For guidance on appeals generally, see: Civil appeals: general and preliminary considerations—overview. For further general guidance on appeals against a finding of fact, see Practice Note: Grounds of appeal—appealing a finding of fact. This Practice Note refers to the decision in MacMillan Inc v Bishopsgate Investment Trust Plc (No 4). Note that in some judgments it has been referenced as MCC Proceeds Inc v Bishopsgate Investment Trust. Foreign law is a question of fact Foreign law is treated a question of fact because it is a well established rule of English law that an English judge is not imputed to have knowledge of foreign law. For guidance, see Practice Note: Foreign law—guide for dispute resolution practitioners—What is foreign law?. Role of the judge at first instance While this Practice Note considers the approach of the appeal courts when dealing with appeals on a point of foreign law, it is helpful to have an understanding

This Practice Note sets out the role of the courts of England and Wales (English courts) when considering a point of foreign law. It covers a variety of considerations including interpretation of foreign legislation and case law as well as dealing with conflicting or uncontradicted evidence. For different aspects of foreign law, see Practice Note: Foreign law—a guide for dispute resolution practitioners. Determining the scope of foreign law In cases in which evidence of foreign law is to be adduced, the following will generally take place: • the parties are required to: ◦ determine the scope of the evidence required, and then ◦ present the scope of evidence to the court as an agreed list of issues • the court will consider the agreed list of issues and will normally grant permission for evidence to be adduced on those issues The requirements for adducing evidence on foreign law differ depending on the type of evidence being adduced. For guidance, see Practice Note: Foreign law—evidence. Determining a point of

This Practice Note considers the circumstances in which the English court may apply English law where foreign law is, or may be, applicable. It explains the distinction between the default rule, under which English law is applied where neither party pleads foreign law, and the presumption of similarity, under which the court may infer that pleaded foreign law is materially similar to English law. It considers the application of the presumption where no foreign law evidence is adduced or the evidence is inadequate, including when reliance on the presumption may be inappropriate or procedurally unfair. It also examines when mandatory provisions of English law may have overriding effect despite the substantive issue otherwise being governed by foreign law. For guidance on any requirement to plead foreign law, see Practice Note: Foreign law—is there a requirement to plead foreign law? When English law may be applied This aspect of the court’s role may not be required where the parties have agreed the law to be applied by the court when determining the

This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. STOP PRESS: Abolition of non-dom regime and introduction of residence-based IHT regime Finance Act 2025 (FA 2025) which received Royal Assent on 20 March 2025, implements legislation to abolish the remittance basis of taxation and replace it with a residence-based regime, commencing on 6 April 2025. FA 2025 also replaces domicile as the key factor in establishing liability to inheritance tax. Other changes include amendment of the rules determining excluded property status, the abolition of protected settlements status of offshore trusts, and changes to overseas workday relief. For information on these changes, see Practice Notes: The abolition of the remittance basis of taxation from 2025–26 and A new residence-based regime for IHT from 2025–26. See also: Finance Bill Tracking Service: Key dates (Finance Bill 2025) and Finance Act 2025. This Practice Note considers the particular capital loss election that can be made by non-domiciled individuals who claim the remittance basis. For an introduction to the remittance basis,

Defined under the UNCITRAL Model Law as foreign proceedings taking place in a state where the debtor has its centre of main interests (COMI).

Defined under the UNCITRAL Model Law as foreign proceedings, other than a foreign main proceeding, taking place in a state where the debtor has an establishment.

TMT analysis: The High Court has dismissed applications for summary dismissal and strike out of several challenges brought by US performers against the UK state related to royalty payments. Among the claims that will now proceed to trial include the claims for ‘Francovich damages’, which allege that the UK failed to correctly implement EU law on (more generous) equitable remuneration for exploitation of their music (phonograms) in the UK, and also the claim for remuneration for sound performances incorporated into audiovisual works, such as within TV broadcasts. Written by Jason Raeburn, partner and head of intellectual property and technology litigation practice (London), and Georgina Morris, associate at Paul Hastings (Europe) LLP.

A state official who may demand or be offered a fee for assistance with contracts or commercial opportunities or to influence a relevant decision in the payor's favour.

The foreign service exemption is, broadly, an exemption from income tax which applies to termination payments where: • the employee worked all or part of the employment period overseas (which the legislation terms 'foreign service'), and • the employee is not UK resident in the tax year in which their employment is terminated This second limb was introduced in respect of terminations which occur on or after 6 April 2018. Prior to that date, the foreign service exemption did not contain any requirements as to the residence of the employee during the tax year of termination. This April 2018 change has drastically reduced the use of the relief. The exemption for foreign service only applies to payments that would otherwise be taxable as payments on termination within section 401 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (ITEPA 2003) (for details on these types of termination payments generally, see Practice Note: Termination payments qualifying for £30,000 exemption). The exemption can never apply to any amounts taxable under

The limited exceptions to the prohibition on foreign students working in the UK are being further tightened under changes to the Immigration Rules so that, with effect from 4 July 2011, a student coming to the UK under Tier 4 of the points-based immigration system will generally not be granted any permission to take employment in the UK if he or she is studying at an institution which is neither publicly-funded nor has UK degree-awarding powers.