Personal Injury analysis: David Green, barrister at 12 King’s Bench Walk, considers an application to appeal against Dingemans J’s judgment in Pickard v Marshal on an important point in the construction of Article 4 of the Rome II Regulations.

Public Law analysis: The claimant is an RAF officer who brought complaints of sex discrimination against the Ministry of Defence (MOD) in the employment tribunal. She was first bound to use the statutory service complaints process to resolve the complaints. Having done so, she sought to bring a discrete sex discrimination and victimisation claim to the tribunal against the service complaints process itself. This was not possible because of statutory restrictions on the tribunal’s jurisdiction. She challenged the statutory provisions as being in breach of rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and her challenge succeeded in the tribunal. The MOD successfully appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), which concluded that the restrictions on the tribunal’s jurisdiction are justifiable. Written by Denis Edwards, barrister, Normanton Chambers.

Arbitration analysis: In DFM v DFL, the Singapore Court of Appeal considered whether a party could be held to have submitted to the tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect of an interim relief application even though the party had challenged the jurisdiction of the tribunal in the arbitration. In this case, despite the appellant’s jurisdictional objection in respect of the arbitration ‘as a whole’ which was yet to be determined, the court held that the appellant’s choice to contest the interim relief application on its merits without making any submissions on the tribunal’s jurisdiction meant that it had waived its right to resist enforcement of the provisional award on the basis of jurisdiction. The appellant’s jurisdictional challenge arose out of the decree issued by the Ruler of Dubai in September 2021 pursuant to which the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) replaced the DIFC-LCIA in considering and determining all disputes arising out of arbitration agreements. Written by Amanda Lees, partner at King & Wood Mallesons.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: Was the liquidator of a Bahamian mutual fund, in compulsory liquidation, entitled to serve a fraudulent preference claim outside the jurisdiction? Representatives of the appellant, Brian Simms QC and Sophia Rolle-Kapousouzoglou, senior partner and partner respectively at Lennox Paton, discuss the outcome of the case which has far-reaching implications for the insolvency law of The Bahamas.

This checklist sets out those jurisdictions with a transaction value threshold. For details of all merger control thresholds, see MJ merger grid—jurisdiction. Jurisdictions

The lists below set out the jurisdictions with merger control thresholds that are asset based thresholds and/or market share/share of supply based thresholds (these may be alternatives to other thresholds). For details of all merger control thresholds, see MJ merger grid—jurisdiction. Jurisdictions with asset based thresholds Note—these may be alternatives to other thresholds. • Argentina (note—this is an exemption threshold) • Armenia • Belarus • Botswana • Cambodia • Canada • Colombia • Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) • Costa Rica • EAC merger control • Egypt • El Salvador • Ethiopia • Guatemala (note—when in force) • Honduras • India • Indonesia • Kazakhstan • Kenya • Kuwait • Malawi • Mexico • Namibia • Pakistan • Peru • Philippines • Russia • Seychelles • South Africa • South Korea • Tajikistan • Tanzania • Trinidad & Tobago • Uganda • Ukraine • United States of America • Uzbekistan • Vietnam • Zambia • Zimbabwe Jurisdictions with market share/share of supply based thresholds Note—these may be alternatives to other thresholds. • Algeria • Andorra • Angola • Armenia (note—the relevant threshold is whether a party holds a dominant position) • Aruba

This Practice Note aims to provide an understanding as to what is meant by the term ‘jurisdiction’ when dealing with cross-border litigation. It explains the importance of determining which court has jurisdiction and how the courts of England and Wales (English courts) will determine whether they have jurisdiction to determine a particular dispute. There are a number of jurisdictional regimes the courts can apply to determine jurisdiction and it can be difficult to determine which one applies. Once the relevant jurisdiction regime has been identified, navigating through it in terms of both its scope and application is also not always straightforward. This Practice Note aims to assist with this process by identifying the main jurisdictional regimes and it also considers issues relevant to jurisdiction such as jurisdiction agreements, the domicile of the defendant, staying proceedings in favour of a court with jurisdiction or seeking a declaration that a court does not have jurisdiction. Practitioners should note that conventions to which the UK is not a party are not covered in this Practice Note for

Dispute Resolution analysis: How should a court, for the purposes of determining jurisdiction under the service gateways, including new gateway introduced by CPR PD 6B, para 3.1(4A), identify the location of the damage in a claim for conspiracy to injure where the communication between the alleged victim and conspirators had been online? Chris Smith, barrister at Quadrant Chambers, explains the approach of the Queen's Bench Division in Eurasia Sports Ltd v Tsai and others.

This Practice Note considers the English law (in terms of both UK legislation and relevant common law) relevant to determining the domicile of an individual who is a party to proceedings. This can be relevant to determining whether the court has jurisdiction or whether permission is required to serve the defendant outside England and Wales. The Practice Note considers the date used to determine domicile, as well as the standard and burden of proof when establishing domicile. It then considers the definition of ‘domicile’ and the authorities that consider the meaning of the key terms being ‘residence’ and ‘substantial connection’, as well as the presumption of a ‘substantial connection’ as a consequence of three months residency. It briefly considers the position if the defendant is not domiciled in the jurisdiction. The key legislation in this area is the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982. Note, the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Order 2001, SI 2001/3929 was applicable to proceedings commenced on or before 31 December 2020 at 11 pm if they were subject to Regulation (EU) 1215/2012,

This Practice Note sets out how to determine the domicile of a legal entity, such as a company, corporation or LLP, for jurisdictional purposes. There is no single test of corporate domicile that applies across all jurisdiction regimes. The relevant test depends on the statutory or international instrument being applied. For guidance on determining the domicile and residence of a natural person, see Practice Note: Jurisdiction—determining an individual’s domicile. For guidance on determining the domicile of an employer, see Practice Note: International jurisdiction—the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 in employment cases. What date is used to determine domicile? There does not appear to be direct reported authority on the date at which the domicile of a company, corporation or LLP is to be determined for jurisdiction purposes. The approach can, however, be derived from the authorities concerning individuals, where domicile has been considered as a jurisdictional connecting factor, see Practice Note: Jurisdiction—determining an individual’s domicile, specifically main section: What date is used to determine domicile? Although those authorities

This Practice Note considers the two rules applied when determining which courts have jurisdiction to hear a dispute about immovable property. The two rules are, essentially, the corollary of each other. They are the: • ‘immovables rule’—an English legal principle that foreign courts do not have jurisdiction over immovable property situated in England • ‘Moçambique rule’—this is applied to determine whether the courts of England and Wales (English courts) have jurisdiction to apply the common law to determine a dispute about property situated in a different jurisdiction What is the immovables rule? The ‘immovables rule’ is a special category of private international law found in English law. Similar rules, known by other names, can be found in a number of other national common law legal systems, for example Canada and the United States of America. The commonality of the rules is that they are applied when dealing with disputes regarding either the rights to or interests in immovable property. The rules provide that such disputes: • will be governed by the law of the country in which

The distinction between grants in common form and those in solemn form The distinction between grants in common form and those in solemn form is that a common form proof of the Will is where the Will's validity is not challenged or questioned. The executor nominated by the Will or indeed, their successor or the person entitled to a grant of administration with Will annexed, presents the Will with their application form PA1P as to its contents and any required affidavits to the district probate registry. A grant is thereby issued in their name irrespective of the absence of any other interested parties. A grant of probate obtained in common form is accepted in all courts in England and Wales as conclusive evidence of the executor's title and of the formal validity and the contents of the Will—this applies equally to a grant of administration with the Will annexed. Similarly, a grant of letters of administration is accepted in all such courts as conclusive evidence of the title of the administrator as personal representative of