TMT analysis: The High Court has dismissed the judicial review challenge to the Online Safety Act 2023 (Category 1, Category 2A and Category 2B Threshold Conditions) Regulations 2025, SI 2025/226 (the Category Threshold Regulations) brought by the Wikimedia Foundation (which hosts Wikipedia) together with a user and editor of Wikipedia (together, Wikimedia). Services categorised pursuant to the Category Threshold Regulations are subject to additional duties under the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023), with Category 1 services being subject to the most rigorous duties and oversight. The crux of Wikimedia’s complaint was that the categorisation criteria in the Category Threshold Regulations are logically flawed: the criteria were intended to capture large, profitable social media companies, where viral dissemination is common, but were drafted too broadly and thereby likely capture Wikipedia. The court rejected Wikimedia’s arguments in this regard and dismissed the grounds of challenge based on breach of statutory duty and irrationality. The court refused to hear the remaining two grounds predicated on breaches of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998), as Wikimedia could not show it was a ‘victim’ under the HRA 1998 (as Ofcom has not yet determined if Wikipedia is a Category 1 service). However, the court suggested it was open to Wikimedia bringing another challenge after a categorisation decision has been reached. Written by Vivien Zhu, associate at Bristows LLP.

Debt that is subordinated to or otherwise ranks behind senior debt.

This Practice Note deals with the procedural aspects of juries under the Juries Act 1974. Who is entitled to serve on a jury? Section 1 of the Juries Act 1974 (JA 1974) states that everyone is entitled to serve on a jury provided that: • the person is registered as a parliamentary or local government elector • is not less than 18 nor more than 75 years of age • has been ordinarily resident in the UK, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man for any period of at least five years since attaining the age of 13, and • is not disqualified from jury service The upper age limit for jurors is 75 years old. Those who are disqualified from jury service include: • a  person for the time being liable to be detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 (MeHA 1983) • a person for the time being resident in a hospital on account of a mental disorder as defined by MeHA 1983 • a person for the time being under guardianship

Jurisdiction means both the authority or power of the court to determine a dispute between parties as well as the territory over which the legal authority of a court extends.

This Practice Note considers the incorporation of a jurisdiction clause from a charterparty into a bill of lading. The focus is on: • the special English law rules applicable to incorporation of charterparty terms into bills of lading • the modern authorities on jurisdiction and dispute resolution wording in bills of lading • practical points arising from standard terms used in carriage contracts and bills of lading • the position of consignees and holders where incorporated bill terms are relied on The Practice Note is intended as an introduction for lawyers working on shipping and aviation matters. The Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Jurisdiction agreements by incorporation—principles, which considers the wider principles governing incorporation of jurisdiction clauses, especially incorporation by reference to standard terms and conditions. Key takeaways The key takeaways from this Practice Note are: • in the bill of lading context, the question is one of construction, but English law applies a strict approach to incorporation • general words will usually incorporate only

This Practice Note considers the incorporation of a jurisdiction clause into a contract by reference either to: • standard terms and conditions, or • wording of a separate contract This Practice Note provides a general summary of the position when dealing with charter-parties and bills of lading as well as insurance and reinsurance. The Practice Note also provides examples of clauses which the courts held did not incorporate jurisdiction clauses from one contract into another. The Practice Note refers to cases decided under the Brussels Convention, Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I and Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) (the Brussels Regime) where they provide general guidance as to the approach of the courts to the incorporation of jurisdiction agreements. For specific guidance on the courts’ approach when considering whether a jurisdiction clause has been incorporated into a contract/agreement between the parties under Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast), see Practice Note: E&W Brussels I (recast)—requirements for an effective choice of court agreement (art 25) [Archived]. Note, the UK's departure from the EU has implications

This Practice Note considers asymmetric jurisdiction agreements. It explains what an asymmetric jurisdiction clause is and provides examples of clauses used in contracts. It considers the compatibility of asymmetric jurisdiction clauses with the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements and the Hague Judgments Convention. For guidance on other types of jurisdiction agreement, namely exclusive and non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses, see Practice Notes: • Jurisdiction agreements—exclusive jurisdiction agreements • Jurisdiction agreements—non-exclusive jurisdiction agreements What is an asymmetric jurisdiction clause? Asymmetric jurisdiction clauses (also known as unilateral non-exclusive, hybrid or one-way choice of court agreements) are a specific type of jurisdiction clause used when the parties to the contract have different requirements as to which courts should have jurisdiction to determine a dispute under the contract. Asymmetric clauses typically provide that one party may only bring proceedings in the courts of a specified jurisdiction while the other party may bring proceedings in any court that has jurisdiction. The UK courts have held that such clauses are valid but some other countries have taken a different approach. Consequently,

This Practice Note considers the approach of the English courts where two or more agreements potentially bear on the forum in which disputes are to be resolved and those agreements contain competing dispute resolution clauses. The question is one of contractual construction. The court construes the clauses in their contractual and commercial context and seeks to determine the parties’ objective intention. For guidance when dealing with related contracts, see Practice Note: Jurisdiction agreements—related contracts. Overview The presumption of one-stop adjudication is a key consideration but not the sole one. In competing dispute resolution clause cases, the court still has to construe the agreements actually made by the parties, look at the overall scheme of the transaction, identify the commercial centre of the dispute, and decide whether the clauses can properly be read as mutually exclusive, cumulative, or superseding one another. General approach International transactional agreements are frequently structured using multiple contracts to form the contractual framework. If two or more agreements, between the same parties, each contain a jurisdiction clause but designate different courts or different

This Practice Note provides examples of the various different types of jurisdiction agreements (also called choice of court agreements), namely exclusive, non-exclusive and asymmetric jurisdiction agreements. In some cases, the jurisdiction clause includes a forum non conveniens waiver which means that the parties have agreed to waive their right to argue the doctrine of forum non conveniens (which is the proper court to determine the dispute). For detailed guidance, see Practice Notes: • Jurisdiction agreements—exclusive jurisdiction agreements • Jurisdiction agreements—asymmetric jurisdiction agreements • Forum non conveniens—principles Exclusive jurisdiction agreements Example: Exclusive jurisdiction clause Example taken from Cia Sud Americana de Vapores SA v Hin-Pro International Logistics Ltd (2015) where the absence of the word ‘exclusive’ did not preclude the Court of Appeal from construing the relevant provision as an exclusive jurisdiction clause: ‘This Bill of Lading and any claim or dispute arising hereunder shall be subject to English law and the jurisdiction of the English High Court of Justice in London. If, notwithstanding the foregoing, any proceedings are commenced in another jurisdiction, such proceeding shall be referred to

This Practice Note considers exclusive jurisdiction agreements (also known as choice of court agreements). Specific considerations as to the construction, effect and enforcement of this type of jurisdiction agreements are discussed. For guidance on: • non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses, see Practice Note: Jurisdiction agreements—non-exclusive jurisdiction agreements • asymmetric jurisdiction clauses, see Practice Note: Jurisdiction agreements—asymmetric jurisdiction agreements What is an exclusive jurisdiction clause? An exclusive jurisdiction clause or agreement provides for the courts in a specified jurisdiction to hear disputes between the parties. It creates a contractual right not to be sued elsewhere. Some exclusive jurisdiction clauses also include forum non conveniens waivers, ie the parties irrevocably waive any right to bring proceedings in a jurisdiction other than that stipulated in the jurisdiction clause. Exclusive jurisdiction clauses differ from non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses in that they exclude the right of the parties to commence proceedings in a different jurisdiction to that provided for in the jurisdiction clause. For examples of exclusive jurisdiction clauses, see Practice Note: Jurisdiction agreements—example clauses—Exclusive jurisdiction agreements. Exclusive jurisdiction clauses—construction Whether the

This Practice Note considers jurisdiction agreements, also known as choice of court agreements. It explains what a jurisdiction agreement is and the purpose of parties entering into one, including the use of jurisdiction clauses in a settlement agreement. It then explains what constitutes a breach of a jurisdiction agreement and what remedies may be available in the event of a breach. It should be read together with the detailed Practice Notes covering construction, interpretation and incorporation, related and competing jurisdiction clauses and types of jurisdiction agreements (exclusive, non-exclusive jurisdiction agreements and asymmetric jurisdiction agreements). jurisdiction clauses. See: Determining court jurisdiction—overview. It is also important to have an understanding of the application of any formal jurisdictional regime. A key regime is the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. Broadly, this convention applies between the UK and other contracting states in proceedings in which the parties entered into an exclusive jurisdiction agreement. For information on the different regimes, see Practice Note: Jurisdiction rules. Importance of a jurisdiction clause A jurisdiction agreement can provide a contractual basis for requiring disputes

This Practice Note considers non-exclusive jurisdiction agreements (also known as choice of court agreements or forum selection clauses). It explains what a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause is and its effect. It also considers enforcement of such a clause. For a general introduction to jurisdiction agreements, see Practice Note: Jurisdiction agreements—introduction. For guidance on other types of jurisdiction agreements, see: Determining court jurisdiction—overview. What is a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause? A non-exclusive jurisdiction clause may provide for the courts in a specified jurisdiction to hear disputes between the parties or may not set out any specified jurisdiction. It differs from an exclusive jurisdiction clause, in that it is without prejudice to the rights of any party to commence proceedings in a different jurisdiction to that provided for in the jurisdiction clause. When parties agree a jurisdiction clause which does not refer to any specific jurisdiction, this may still be regarded as a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause. This was considered in Axis Corporate Capital UK II Ltd v ABSA Group Ltd (2022) where the judge rejected a submission that such