It is worth noting that Brussels I (recast) may continue to have relevance to proceedings commenced from 1 January 2021 if related to pre-existing proceedings commenced before that date (see Articles 29 to 31 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast)). Defining and identifying jurisdiction Jurisdiction is the competence or power of a court, for our purposes in England and Wales, to hear and determine a claim. Jurisdiction is different from the applicable law governing the claim. The courts of England and Wales may have jurisdiction to hear a claim but it does not necessarily mean that the applicable law of the claim is English law. For guidance on the different regimes for identifying the applicable law, see Practice Note: Choice of law in foreign accident claims. Jurisdiction relates to whether the claim can be brought in England and Wales. There are obvious benefits for an individual who lives in England and Wales to bring a claim in England and Wales including convenience and cost. The test to establish the court’s jurisdiction is determined on the

This Practice Note provides guidance on issues relating to jurisdiction in overseas cases including cases with UK-EU connections issued after 11 pm on 31 December 2020 (IP completion day) and therefore not subject to transitional arrangements. It sets out the circumstances in which the courts in England and Wales will have jurisdiction in family proceedings, specifically under the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 (DMPA 1973). For guidance and comparative information 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 EU countries and UK cases to which transitional provisions apply (broadly, proceedings instituted before IP completion day), see Practice Note: Jurisdiction in cases with EU connections issued before IP completion day, including the sections on the Impact of Brexit and Transitional provisions. Domicile and habitual residence When dealing with jurisdictional issues in a case involving an overseas country, careful consideration will need to be given to the domicile and habitual residence

Role of the court The High Court has jurisdiction in relation to probates and letters of administration, in particular all contentious and non-contentious cases relating to: • testamentary causes and matters • the grant, amendment or revocation of probates and letters of administration, and • the real and personal estates of deceased persons Probate jurisdiction The probate jurisdiction of the High Court is divided between the Family Division and the Business and Property Division (and County Court). The Family Division deals with non-contentious or common form probate business and the Business and Property Division deals with contentious or solemn form probate business. See Practice Note: What are common and solemn form probate? Probate jurisdiction—Family Division There are three main issues: • whether a document is admissible to probate • who is entitled to a grant of representation • whether a grant already made should be revoked Right of interpretation—Family Division To grant representation the Family Division may consider the terms of testamentary documents to determine a point of construction

The nature of the offence Jurisdiction to try allegations under the Bribery Act 2010 (BA 2010) depends on the elements of the offence alleged. Failure of a commercial organisation to prevent bribery If an offence of failure of a commercial organisation to prevent bribery has been alleged: • it does not matter where any of the acts or omissions relied on took place, and • where no part of the alleged offence has occurred in the UK, proceedings for the offence may take place anywhere in the UK: ◦ in England, Wales and Northern Ireland proceedings may be brought in any court ◦ in Scotland, they may take place in any sheriff court district either: as the Lord Advocate decides; or in which the suspect is apprehended or is in custody For more information see Practice Note: Failure to prevent bribery—the offence. Bribing another person (active bribery), being bribed (passive bribery) or bribing a foreign public official Where an offence of active or passive bribery, or bribing a foreign public

Dispute Resolution analysis: A District Judge has jurisdiction under CPR 27.11 to set aside their own order, despite the order being ‘final and conclusive’ pursuant to section 70 of the County Courts Act 1984 (CCA 1984). In the case of non-attendance by a party in a small claim leading to a judgment pursuant to CPR 27.9, the first recourse for setting aside that judgment is to CPR 27.11. In this particular case the claim had been issued against the wrong party, which was a connected but entirely separate legal entity. The ‘correct’ party had played some part in assisting the named defendant but the court held that it had not submitted to the claim and could therefore seek to set aside the judgment under CPR 27.11 on the basis that they were not present at the hearing and had a good reason for not being present. Written by Matthew Winn-Smith, barrister at Lamb Chambers.

This Practice Note considers the jurisdiction of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). It looks at the status of the EAT and its appellate jurisdiction including appeals from the Certification Officer and the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC). It discusses binding precedent and in what circumstances the EAT might depart from its own previous decisions. It examines the meaning of questions of law rather than fact and the appeal of case management orders. It also considers particular types of appeal including inadequate reasons appeals, appeals due to bias, improper conduct, procedural irregularity or delay by an employment tribunal, perversity appeals and appeals on new points of law or points conceded below. The EAT’s non-appellate jurisdiction, in which the EAT considers applications made directly to it, is also covered. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) is a creature of statute and derives its jurisdiction from statute. It may sit anywhere in Great Britain but its central office is in London and hearings generally only take place in London and Edinburgh. The EAT has its own rules of procedure,

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: This was a claim in London by an English HGV driver seriously injured while working at a Spanish warehouse. The Spanish parties (the warehouse operator and its insurers) argued that the court of England and Wales did not have jurisdiction, or if they did, Spain was the appropriate forum to determine the claim. The court explored the circumstances in which the jurisdictional gateways were met and identified a range of considerations for assessing whether the courts of England and Wales were the appropriate forum. Ultimately, the court found that that it had jurisdiction and was the appropriate forum and allowed the claim to proceed. This has strengthened the ability and willingness of the English courts to consider employers’ liability claims with a cross-border element. Produced in partnership with Robert Parkin of Deka Chambers.

Arbitration analysis: The Singapore International Commercial Court dismissed two applications brought by the respondent in an arbitration, one seeking to challenge the tribunal’s jurisdiction, and the other seeking declarations that the dispute was non‑arbitrable, or that the underlying charterparty was unenforceable, because the contract was illegal and violated Singapore’s public policy. On jurisdiction, the court considered the principles applicable to interpretation of the charterparty and, applying these, held that the applicant was a party to the charterparty containing the arbitration agreement, and the tribunal therefore had jurisdiction. (Although had the applicant not been a party to the contract, its prior conduct in separate proceedings (where it had accepted that it was a party) would not have prevented it from denying the fact now). On the second application, the court held that the issue of the illegality of the contract was a matter for the tribunal to determine, and the court would not pre-empt the tribunal’s decision by exercising its power to grant declarations. Written by Rob Palmer, partner and Hugo Petit, associate at Hogan Lovells Lee & Lee.

This Practice Note sets out which jurisdiction rules the English courts will apply when determining which court has jurisdiction to determine a dispute. The rules are set out in the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements, Brussels I (recast), Brussels I, Lugano Convention, Brussels Convention, statute or common law. In international litigation, there may be a dispute between the parties as to where, ie in which jurisdiction, the dispute between them should be heard. It is therefore important to be aware that specific rules apply when determining which court has jurisdiction to hear the dispute. The fact that the UK has left the EU will also have an impact on which jurisdiction rules will be applied by the courts of England and Wales when determining which courts have jurisdiction. For insight into the different jurisdictional issues to consider, aside from the jurisdiction rules, see Practice Note: Jurisdiction—a guide for dispute resolution practitioners. Relevant jurisdiction regimes The main jurisdictional regimes of relevance to Dispute resolution practitioners are the following: • Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements—applied

This Practice Note sets out which jurisdiction rules the courts of England and Wales will apply when deciding which court has the power to hear and determine a claim. The jurisdiction rules are provided in Brussels I (recast), conventions, statute or common law. In international litigation, there may be a dispute between the parties as to where, ie in which jurisdiction, the dispute between them should be heard. It is therefore important for practitioners to be aware that specific rules apply when determining which court has jurisdiction to hear the dispute. The UK’s departure from the EU affected the jurisdictional regimes applied by the courts of England and Wales when determining which courts have jurisdiction. Relevant jurisdiction regimes The main jurisdictional regime of relevance to personal injury practitioners is the common law and CPR provisions. The common law is applied by the courts of England and Wales to determine whether the

Family law analysis: Sheena Cassidy, barrister and deputy head of 3PB Chambers, examines the decision of Cobb J in WS v HS which considers the power of the family courts to make an interim order for sale in circumstances where section 22ZA of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) does not apply.

Family analysis: The Court of Appeal held that there is no jurisdiction to set aside a validly made order for the adoption of a child other than by way of appeal. The Adoption and Children Act 2002 (ACA 2002) does not make any provision for the revocation of an adoption order save in the very rare circumstances prescribed by ACA 2002, ss 55 and 46(5). Those exceptional cases in which adoption orders have correctly been set aside concern orders vitiated by procedural irregularities or mistakes of fact. Olivia Magennis, barrister at 1GC|Family Law, looks at the issues.