Cross-border issues arise whenever someone holds assets in more than one jurisdiction, encounters capacity issues while living or present in another jurisdiction, or has a nationality, habitual residence or domicile that links them with another jurisdiction. In an increasingly globalised world, such issues are becoming more and more common. In any case with a cross-border element, it will be necessary to consider questions such as which court has jurisdiction over the person, which state's laws will be applied, and whether orders made in one state will be recognised by the authorities of a different state. Equally applicable is the question of whether there exists any form of private mandate intended to have effect upon incapacity and whether this will be effective in another state. Hague Convention XXXV on the International Protection of Vulnerable Adults The Hague Convention XXXV on the International Protection of Vulnerable Adults was formally concluded at the Hague on 13 January 2000 with the aim of drawing together all of the various approaches to mental capacity within the

Law360: Prominent arbitrator and international judge Charles Brower is pushing back against claims from the Kremlin that conflicts of interest should bar his amicus brief to the DC Circuit in support of Yukos Oil Co shareholders' US$50bn arbitration enforcement.

ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note considers the question of international jurisdiction in relation to employment disputes instituted before 1 January 2021, ie whose courts and/or tribunals should decide an employment case where either the employee works abroad or there is a foreign employer. Note that jurisdiction for proceedings instituted from 1 January 2021 onwards is determined by the provisions of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (CJJA 1982). For more information, see Practice Note: International jurisdiction—the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 in employment cases. This Practice Note looks at the impact of Brexit and IP completion day and considers the relevant provisions of the Brussels I (recast) regime that applied to proceedings instituted before 1 January 2021. That regime continues to be relevant to the interpretation of CJJA 1982. Brexit impact From exit day (31 January 2020) the UK ceased to be an EU Member State but, in accordance with the transitional arrangements provided in the October Withdrawal Agreement, the UK was in an implementation

Update: The Court of Appeal will hear an appeal against the EAT decision in Prähl v Lapinski on 1 or 2 December 2026. This Practice Note considers the provisions of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (CJJA 1982), which determine the question of international jurisdiction in relation to employment proceedings instituted on or after 1 January 2021. For a flowchart representing the position in High Court disputes, see: Determining jurisdiction in employment disputes (High Court)—flowchart. A flowchart representing the position in employment tribunal disputes will be available shortly. For guidance on international jurisdiction when the proceedings were instituted on or before 31 December 2020, see Practice Note: International jurisdiction—allocating employment cases between national courts and tribunals pre-1 January 2021 [Archived]. Background If the claim is a common law claim brought in the courts, such as a claim for damages for breach of contract or to enforce post-termination restrictions (restrictive covenants), the rules on jurisdiction in CJJA 1982 and the

This monthly round-up (April 2022) has seen the UK Government publish its long-awaited reforms to its competition law regime, including to merger enforcement, further clarification from the Ukraine Competition Authority regarding the merger review process during Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, amendments to the Form II notification form (long form) in India, and the introduction of revised merger control thresholds in Zimbabwe. UK—key changes to merger enforcement On 20 April 2022, the Government published its long-awaited reforms to its competition law regime. In relation to merger control, the Government has signalled its intention to progress the following key reforms: • retain the UK’s voluntary and non-suspensory merger regime • raise the target’s UK turnover threshold in line with inflation from £70m to £100m (although the threshold for intervention in media mergers on public interest grounds will continue to be £70m) • introduction of a new threshold ‘to provide a more comprehensive and effective jurisdictional basis for certain vertical and conglomerate mergers, in particular so called ‘killer acquisitions’ that risk the development of new products or services’. Under the new

This month has seen the UK Government introduce to Parliament the long-awaited Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill, implementing wide-ranging reforms to competition and consumer law (including making amendments to the CMA’s jurisdiction to review mergers), the European Commission adopting major reforms to simplify the EUMR merger review process, a call by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission for an overhaul of Australia’s merger control regime, an increase to the notification thresholds in Zambia, and the Indonesian Competition Authority confirming changes revamping its merger control regime as well as the introduction of a merger filing fee. UK—Government introduces the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Bill On 25 April 2025, the UK Government introduced the long-awaited Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill (DCCB). The DCCB’s scope is wide and covers three broad areas: (i) the introduction of a new regulatory framework for large digital platforms; (ii) the first major reform to UK competition law in a decade; and (iii) an overhaul of UK consumer protection law. In relation to merger control reform, the DCCB makes several significant

This month has seen a new competition law (including the introduction of a merger control regime) come into effect in Aruba, publication by the Australian government of proposed changes to its merger control regime, an announcement that revised merger control thresholds in Belarus will enter into force on 7 July 2024, Egypt introducing implementing regulations for its newly established pre-merger regime, and adoption by the UK of a new phase 2 merger review process. Aruba—new competition law enters into effect The Competition Regulation has come into effect in Aruba. The Competition Regulation covers the three core areas of competition law, including merger control. The Competition Regulation introduces a new mandatory merger control regime. A transaction requires notification if: • the companies involved have a combined annual turnover of at least Afl 125m (approximately €64m/US$69.3m), and • at least two of the companies involved each have turnover of Afl 15m (approximately €7.7m/US$8.3m). There is also a reporting obligation if the parties involved in one or more relevant markets in Aruba has a market share of 30%

This month has seen in proposals presented by the Federal Executive to the Chamber of Senators to amend Mexico’s Competition Law (including merger control), annual amendments to the merger control thresholds in the Philippines and Tajikistan, an update to Poland’s merger guidance exempting from notification obligations relating to extraterritorial joint ventures (JVs) with no effect in the Polish market, and publication of updated merger guidelines in Saudi Arabia providing clarification on the notification thresholds, details on the concept of control, exemptions for certain JVs and the validity period for clearance decisions. Mexico—changes to competition law presented by the Federal Executive On 24 April 2025, an announcement was made that the head of the Federal Executive sent to the Chamber of Senators the Initiative with a Draft Decree (Draft Decree) amending, adding, and repealing various provisions of the Federal Economic Competition Law (the Bill) to initiate the legislative process. The Draft Decree proposes substantial changes to the Federal Economic Competition Law. In relation to merger control, there are two proposals: (i) an increase in the term for investigating

This month has seen the next phase of the mandatory merger control regime come into force in Australia, the Czech Office for the Protection of Competition publish significant draft amendments to the Competition Law, including enhancements to the merger control regime such as call-in powers, the European Commission launches a consultation on revising its Merger Guidelines, parliament passing a bill to significantly increase the merger control thresholds in France, the government in Jersey publishing the Competition (Mergers and Acquisitions) (Jersey) Order 2026, reforming the jurisdictional thresholds and introducing a call-in period for non-notified transactions, amendments in Kuwait to the notification thresholds, proposed amendments to merger control framework in Malta, and the introduction of a new mandatory merger control regime in Timor-Leste. Australia—new mandatory merger control regime enters next major phase On 1 April 2026, the second phase of the new merger control regime came into effect. Key aspects of the second phase include: • expansion of the notification thresholds to acquisitions of assets that do not result in a person acquiring all, or substantially all, of the

This month has seen the proposal of a new EU regulation to respond to foreign subsidies (including new notification thresholds for mergers), amendments passed to the Slovakian merger regime (including changes to thresholds), and the introduction of a simplified notification procedure in Chile. The European Commission has published proposals for a new regulation to address the potential distortive effects of foreign subsidies. Amongst the proposals is, from a merger control point of view: • a notification-based tool to investigate concentrations involving a financial contribution by a non-EU government, where the EU turnover of the company to be acquired (or of at least one of the merging parties) is €500m (approximately US$603.9m) or more and the foreign financial contribution is at least €50m (approximately US$60.4m), and • the power for the Commission to investigate on its own initiative smaller concentrations which do not meet the thresholds above. In addition, a notification tool is proposed for certain public procurement bids, as well as the ability to investigate other market situations. If the Commission determines that a

This month has seen reports regarding possible thresholds for a proposed mandatory merger control regime in Australia, as well as an announcement by the Australian government concerning  a review of competition law (including merger control) with the establishment of a Competition Taskforce, the Competition and Commission Protection Commission in Ireland issuing new guidance on mergers in anticipation of the commencement of the Competition (Amendment) Act 2022, the introduction of a new value transaction threshold in Russia, the Ukrainian Parliament approving reforms to the competition law regime, including in relation to merger control, and amendments to the merger control thresholds in Uzbekistan. Australia—reports of possible introduction of mandatory merger control regime; government also announces review of competition laws and sets up a taskforce There have been two developments to report from Australia. First, it has been reported that documents obtained from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) under a Freedom of Information (FOI) law suggests that transactions involving companies with turnover exceeding AUD$400m or a transaction value of more than A$35m would trigger a mandatory filing

This month has seen the Australian Government launch its consultation on proposed new merger control thresholds, and the Competition and Markes Authority (CMA) publish for consultation draft updates to six of its merger guidance documents in the UK. Australia—Government launches consultation on proposed new merger control thresholds In our monthly merger update for April 2024, we highlighted that the Australian Government published its proposed reforms in relation to its merger control regime. In addition, we mentioned that the notification thresholds would be the subject of further consultation. On 30 August 2024, the Australian Government published a consultation paper. The Australian Government proposes separate monetary and market concentration thresholds, each with two formulations (limbs). Satisfying any of those four tests will mean that the acquisition is notifiable. The target business or asset must have a ‘material connection to Australia’ (for example, being registered or located in Australia, supply Australian customers, or generating revenue in Australia). The limbs are summarised below. Monetary thresholds It is proposed that the monetary threshold will be met if either: • (i) the combined Australian