ARCHIVED: This Checklist has been archived and is not maintained. This Checklist considers the position that EU courts are expected to adopt in relation to the application of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) if the UK leaves the EU on exit day without a deal, the so called ‘no deal Brexit’ scenario. It reviews the regulation’s articles dealing with jurisdiction and the impact of a no deal Brexit on their application in proceedings with a UK element (whether involving a defendant domiciled in the UK, a jurisdiction agreement in favour of a UK court, or parallel or related proceedings brought in the UK). The position differs depending on whether the proceedings were commenced prior to exit day (with the jurisdictional dispute being determined after that date) or whether the proceedings were commenced after exit day. The position the EU Commission expects EU Member States to take is set out in its notice to stakeholders titled ‘Withdrawal of the United Kingdom and

ARCHIVED: This Checklist has been archived and is not maintained. This Checklist considers how the UK courts will apply Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast), which deals with the allocation of court jurisdiction for civil and commercial matters, if the UK leaves the EU on exit day with no deal, the so called ‘no deal Brexit’ scenario. Exit day is defined by section 20 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The Checklist reviews the regulation’s articles, dealing with jurisdiction, and considers whether the UK courts will apply them and, if so, how. The application of those articles differs depending on whether the proceedings are commenced prior to exit day (with the jurisdictional dispute being determined after that date) or after exit day. The key UK regulation is The Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, SI 2019/479. This comes into force on exit day and contains various savings provisions and modifications to Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) as well

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note covers the situation where the UK and the EU do not reach any agreement regarding settlement processes following the UK leaving the EU. During the implementation period that starts on exit day ie the day the UK leaves the EU, the provisions in the withdrawal agreement will apply. For guidance, on the implementation period and the impact of the withdrawal agreement on taking of evidence, see Practice Note: Brexit implementation period—settlement [Archived]. This Practice Note considers the effect of the UK leaving the EU without a deal when dealing with the mediation of disputes in civil and commercial matters. There are two key UK regulations dealing with no deal Brexit and mediation. The first is The Cross–Border Mediation (EU Directive) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, SI 2019/469 which contains regulations for the revocation and saving of the Cross Border Mediation (EU Directive) Regulations, SI 2011/1133, the legislation which brought the Directive 2008/52/EC, the Mediation Directive into UK law as required under Article 12 of Directive 2008/52/EC, the Mediation Directive. The need

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note covers the situation where the UK and the EU do not reach an agreement for the service of documents following the UK leaving the EU. During the implementation period that starts on exit day ie the day the UK leaves the EU, the provisions in the withdrawal agreement will apply. For guidance, on the implementation period and the impact of the withdrawal agreement on service, see Practice Note: Brexit implementation period—service of documents [Archived]. This Practice Note considers the effect of the UK leaving the EU without a deal when dealing with the service of court documents. The following UK regulations dealing with no deal Brexit impact service: • the Service of Documents and Taking of Evidence in Civil and Commercial Matters (Revocation and Saving Provisions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, SI 2018/1257 which revokes the key EU regulation in this area, ie Regulation (EC) 1393/2007, the Service Regulation and the agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on the service of judicial and extra-judicial documents in civil

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note covers the situation where the UK and the EU do not reach an agreement for the taking of evidence following the UK leaving the EU. During the implementation period that starts on exit day ie the day the UK leaves the EU, the provisions in the withdrawal agreement will apply. For guidance, on the implementation period and the impact of the withdrawal agreement on taking of evidence, see Practice Note: Brexit implementation period—taking of evidence [Archived]. This Practice Note considers the effect of the UK leaving the EU without a deal when dealing with the taking of evidence in civil and commercial matters. There are two key UK regulations dealing with no deal Brexit and taking of evidence. The first is The Service of Documents and Taking of Evidence in Civil and Commercial Matters (Revocation and Saving Provisions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, SI 2018/1257 which revokes the key EU regulation in this area, ie Regulation (EC) 1206/2001, Taking of Evidence regulation. The second is The Civil Procedure Rules 1998

Law360, London: The Court of Appeal ruled on 17 July 2025 that sitting judges can continue to give feedback about applicants for judicial office but told the Judicial Appointments Commission it must weigh whether to disclose negative feedback to candidates in each case.

Pensions analysis: In the Pensions Ombudsman determination of Mrs S, CAS-13504-S4M0, the Pensions Ombudsman (PO) has partially upheld a complaint about the repayment of an overpaid pension. In particular, Mrs S succeeded on a change of position defence in relation to the repayment of the lump sum, but she had no defence in relation to her overpaid pension as she had not changed her position to her detriment in relation to this. Furthermore, there was no estoppel defence available as there had not been an unequivocal statement by the scheme that her pension would continue at a higher rate. Martin Scott of gunnercooke LLP looks at the decision.

Pensions analysis: The Pensions Ombudsman has rejected a complaint about incorrect member communication. Martin Scott of gunnercooke LLP looks at the decision.

Employment analysis: Applicants in a recruitment process in Great Britain for work in foreign waters on foreign registered ships are not protected from acts of discrimination in that recruitment process under the law as it currently stands, according to the EAT.

Law360: Thousands of Tesco workers lost their appeal on 16 May 2024 for correspondence between the supermarket and other equal pay claimants.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal has upheld a decision to grant summary judgment dismissing a claim by a tenant against a property management company for losses caused by the allegedly negligent acts of the porter of a residential block of flats. The property management company owed no duty of care to the tenant in respect of the acts of the porters they had engaged. Written by Phillip Patterson, barrister, Gatehouse Chambers.

Employment analysis: The duty of fidelity or good faith does not include a duty on an employee to disclose truthfully an intention to compete lawfully in future, according to the High Court.