This Practice Note sets out the general principles to be considered when construing a jurisdiction clause. A jurisdiction clause is a contractual provision and when an English court is asked to construe it, the court will apply the law governing that clause and, under English law, applies ordinary principles of contractual construction. The court's approach can be analysed in stages. The court identifies the law applicable to the jurisdiction clause, interprets the clause as at the date it was agreed, considers the language used in its contractual and factual context, characterises the relevant legal relationship, and then determines whether the dispute falls within the scope of the clause. Summary: the court's task is not to classify a clause by label or by isolated wording. The court construes the clause as a contractual provision, applies the law governing it, interprets it as at the date it was made, and reads the words used in their contractual and commercial context. Small differences in wording may matter, but the ultimate exercise remains one of objective construction. Interpretation

This Practice Note considers the approach of the courts where disputes arise across related contracts and the question is whether a jurisdiction agreement contained in one contract applies to disputes arising under another contract. It focuses on related contracts, including contracts entered into as part of the same package, contracts entered into at different times, and agreements in which one contract does not contain its own jurisdiction clause. For guidance when considering competing jurisdiction clauses in different contracts, see Practice Note: Jurisdiction agreements—competing agreements. Overview Complex transactions may comprise a suite of interlinked contracts. To determine which agreement the specific dispute falls within, the courts will consider the contractual provisions of each contract within the context of the wider suite of documents so as to determine the intention of the parties as revealed by the agreements. Any jurisdiction clause is therefore construed in light of the transaction as a whole. In some instances there may be overlap between the different contracts. This may make it difficult to determine which document the dispute falls within and, therefore,

This Practice Note considers selected common law issues that arise in relation to jurisdiction agreements under English law. It focuses on matters of validity and effect, including the relevance of the common law rules, the requirements for a valid jurisdiction agreement, separability, the effect of void and voidable contracts, the position where a settlement agreement contains no jurisdiction clause, and the significance of an English law clause where no jurisdiction agreement has been made. This Practice Note is part of a suite of documents considering jurisdiction agreements: • Jurisdiction agreements—introduction provides general background, including breach and remedies • Jurisdiction agreements—principles of construction provides information on the court’s approach to construing jurisdiction clauses • Jurisdiction agreements—related contracts looks at disputes concerning whether a clause in one contract applies to another related contract • Jurisdiction agreements—competing agreements considers cases involving two or more potentially competing dispute resolution clauses In cases in which the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements applies, the provisions in the convention are mandatory. For guidance, see Practice

Construction analysis: Mr Justice Constable enforced an adjudicator’s award arising from a hospital construction dispute in which the parties advanced rival contractual completion dates and liquidated damages rates. The court held that the adjudicator had not exceeded his jurisdiction by concluding that neither side had proved the contractual rate and that, on that basis, the defendant employer’s liquidated damages claim failed. Nor was there any material breach of natural justice: the issue had been fully argued on the parties’ evidence, and the adjudicator was not obliged to seek further submissions before rejecting both evidential cases.

Dispute Resolution analysis: This decision confirms that the place where professional services (in this case advice and contract drafting by a solicitor) are actually carried out is not necessarily the place of performance for the purpose of determining jurisdiction under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (CJJA 1982), Sch 4, para 3(a). Rather a broader analysis of the ‘place of performance’ is required, which considers the purpose of the performance. In this case, the connections of the obligation to advise and draft agreements were so tied to England that the place of performance of the obligation was in England. In determining jurisdiction under para 3(a), the court will look at the jurisprudence on Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention 1968. The court deprecated reliance on the cases decided on Article 5(1)(b) of the Brussels I Regulation (or its equivalents in Brussels Recast and the Lugano Convention), which had not been incorporated into the CJJA 1982, Sch 4. Written by Jonathan Schaffer-Goddard, barrister at 4 Pump Court.

Family analysis: Did the court, in deciding on financial provision, have jurisdiction to make a global maintenance order? Liz Cowell, partner at McAlister Family Law, looks at the issues of ‘global’ and ‘Segal’ orders in the recent case of AB v CD.

Corporate Crime analysis: A landmark money laundering case, involving the theft of Nigerian oil revenues, returned to the courts for appeals concerning alleged failings in previous trials. Eleanor Davison, of Fountain Court Chambers, outlines the case and presents an assessment of ramifications in which lawyers will take a keen interest.

Dispute Resolution analysis: Mr Justice Saini has rejected what had been thought to be a long-standing rule related to malicious falsehood claims—namely, he rejected the argument that permission to serve outside of the jurisdiction can only be obtained in respect of publications within England and Wales. Written by Phillip Patterson, barrister, at Hardwicke.

This Practice Note sets out the basis of the courts' jurisdiction for proceedings for dissolution and separation orders for civil partners. It also covers the residual jurisdiction. Where more than one country may have jurisdiction to hear proceedings for dissolution, care should be taken to determine which is going to be the most advantageous for the client. Advice should be taken from a lawyer in the other jurisdiction as to the likely outcome of proceedings relating to finances and children. Time may be of the essence in commencing proceedings where there are competing jurisdictions. This Practice Note deals with the question of jurisdiction only in relation to proceedings instituted after 11 pm on 31 December 2020 (IP completion day). For comparative guidance on the bases of jurisdiction before and after IP completion day, see Practice Note: Family proceedings with EU connections—toolkit. Jurisdiction for dissolution, nullity and separation orders for civil partners The courts in England and Wales have jurisdiction as to proceedings for dissolution, nullity and separation orders in respect

This Practice Note sets out the basis of the courts' jurisdiction for proceedings for divorce and judicial separation before and after 11 pm on 31 December 2020 (IP completion day), see: Jurisdiction for divorce, judicial separation and nullity commenced after IP completion day, and prior to that date, see: Jurisdiction for divorce and judicial separation in proceedings commenced before IP completion day, having regard to the implications of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. It also provides guidance on cases where there are competing jurisdictions. 11 pm (GMT) on 31 December 2020 is referred to in UK law as ‘IP completion day’. For comparative guidance on jurisdiction before and after IP completion day, see Practice Note: Family proceedings with EU connections—toolkit. Where more than one country may have jurisdiction to hear divorce proceedings, care should be taken to determine which may be the most advantageous jurisdiction for the client. Advice should be taken from a lawyer in the other jurisdiction or jurisdictions as to the likely outcome of proceedings on finances

This Practice Note provides an overview of jurisdiction in Scotland in terms of considering whether the dispute should be dealt with in Scotland. For guidance on: • which specific Scottish court an action should be raised in, see Practice Note: Starting a civil claim in Scotland • other aspects of Scottish civil litigation, see: Scottish DR: courts and civil procedure—overview, Scottish DR: prescription and limitation—overview, Scottish DR: starting a claim—overview, Scottish DR: case management and evidence—overview, Scottish DR: expenses and funding—overview, Scottish DR: civil appeals and judicial review—overview, Scottish DR: claims and remedies—overview, Scottish DR: enforcement—overview, and Scottish DR: settlement and ADR—overview which, in turn, link through to detailed guidance on specific aspects of dispute resolution in Scotland • the position in England and Wales, see Practice Note: Jurisdiction—a guide for dispute resolution practitioners which, as well as giving an overview of this topic, links through to more detailed guidance on various aspects of jurisdiction Key: • Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements—Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice

This Practice Note sets out the application and scope of Brussels I and Brussels II bis in relation to jurisdiction in family proceedings within the EU and the determination of which Member State has jurisdiction. It also provides guidance on the EU Maintenance Regulation and its interaction with other provisions. The implications of Brexit, including transitional provisions, are also considered. For comparative guidance on the position before and after IP completion day, see Practice Note: Family proceedings with EU connections—toolkit. For guidance on cases involving connections with Denmark (in situations where it has opted out of relevant EU instruments), non-EU countries and cases with UK-EU connections instituted after IP completion day, see Practice Note: Jurisdiction in overseas cases including cases with UK-EU connections issued after IP completion day. Impact of Brexit As of 31 January 2020, the UK ceased to be an EU Member State and no longer participated in the political institutions and governance structures of the EU. However, in accordance with the transitional arrangements provided in Part 4 of