Browsewrap is a way of entering into a contract with a customer online and relies on the customer's acceptance of a warning that mere continuation to view the site amounts to acceptance of the site's terms after warning has been given.

Commercial analysis: When will browse-wrap terms be valid as contracts? Nick Phillips, partner in Intellectual Property and IT for Edwin Coe LLP, analyses leading cases from the UK and overseas on the validity of browse-wrap terms in e-commerce.

Application that retrieves WWW documents specified by URLs from an HTTP server on the Internet. Displays the retrieved documents according to the Hypertext Mark-up Language (HTML).

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 30 October 2018; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into Brussels Airlines and TAP Air Portugal (Case AT.39860). Latest development On 30 October 2018, the Commission announced that it closed its investigation. The Commission concluded that the evidence collected was not sufficient to confirm its initial concerns; furthermore, since 2014, new airlines have begun to compete with the code-sharing airlines on the Brussels-Lisbon route, to the benefit of consumers. The Commission points out though that this closure decision does not mean that close forms of cooperation between competing airlines will not raise competition concerns. Parties Brussels Airlines, based in Belgium (and a subsidiary of the German airline Lufthansa), and TAP Air Portugal, based in Portugal. Market(s) Scheduled passenger flights between

The Brussels Convention Supplementary to the Paris Convention of 29 July 1960 was adopted in 1963 to provide additional funds to compensate damage as a result of a nuclear incident where Paris Convention funds proved to be insufficient. The Brussels Convention stipulates that public funds are to be provided for this purpose, not only by the State where the liable operator's nuclear installation is located, but also by contributions from all parties to the Brussels Convention. The principles of the Brussels Convention are implemented into UK law by the Nuclear Installations Act 1965.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note provides an overview when determining court jurisdiction in proceedings commenced in the courts of England and Wales on or before 31 December 2020 at 11 pm involving Gibraltar, Aruba (an overseas territory of the Netherlands) and French overseas territories. Where proceedings involving these territories are commenced after that date, the question of whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction will be determined under the provisions in CPR 6 and the common law. That determination occurs either when seeking permission of the court to serve the claim form out of the jurisdiction or if the defendant disputes that the court has jurisdiction. For guidance, see Practice Notes: Cross-border service—is permission required to serve a defendant who is outside England and Wales?, Determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction, Cross-border service—application for permission to serve outside England and Wales and Cross-border service—jurisdictional gateways (principles). For a copy of the convention, see: Brussels Convention 1968. Introduction In the UK, the

This Practice Note considers the impact of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) in cases in which there are identical or related proceedings pending before the courts of a non-EU Member State (or ‘third state’ as they are often known). The relevant provisions in the regulation are Articles 33 and 34 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). This Practice Note includes discussion of the application of relevant provisions in the regulation to the UK as a third state following its departure from the EU (subject to the application of transitional provisions in the Withdrawal Agreement). For general guidance on these articles, as well as the other provisions of the regulation that are relevant to third states, namely Articles 18(1), 21(2), 24, 25 and 26 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast), see Practice Note: Brussels I (recast)—application to third states [Archived]. What are the relevant articles in the regulation? Articles 33 and 34 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) were completely new provisions added at the

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived as it explains the changes to CPR 6 when Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) came into force in 2015. This Practice Note refers to: • Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I. The provisions within the CPR refer to this regulation as the 'previous Judgments Regulation' • Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). The provisions within the CPR refer to this regulation as the 'Judgments Regulation' Regulation definition The definition of the Judgments Regulation in the CPR for the purposes of the service provisions changed from: ‘the Judgments Regulation’ means Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, as amended from time to

This Practice Note considers the provisions in Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) dealing with the submission of a defendant to the jurisdiction. Articles 26 and 28 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) set out provisions to determine whether a defendant has submitted to the court’s jurisdiction. The fundamental requirement being that the defendant must enter an ‘appearance’. The meaning of ‘an appearance’ as well as the practicalities involved are explored. If the defendant does not enter an appearance, there may be no submission to the jurisdiction and the court may stay the proceedings. This is considered along with the practical issues that arise when considering whether the defendant has received sufficient information to enter an appearance (Article 28 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast)). This Practice Note also considers the position where the proceedings have a connection with the UK following its departure from the EU. The regulation no longer applies generally to new UK proceedings post-Brexit, save to the extent preserved by transitional provisions,

This Practice Note considers the impact of the UK leaving the EU on the application of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) to the recognition and enforcement of judgments. This includes discussion of applicable provisions in the Withdrawal Agreement between the UK and the EU. Relevant domestic legislation is also discussed, including, where relevant, transitional provisions, as well as the position of the EU Commission. Where relevant, the implications for Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I are also noted. It is important to be aware that there are other enforcement regimes that are impacted by the UK leaving the EU. For guidance, see Practice Note: Brexit post implementation period—considerations for dispute resolution practitioners—Recognition and enforcement of judgments [Archived]. Definitions This Practice Note uses a number of definitions: • Civil Procedure Rules—CPR • EU Commission notice to stakeholders dated 27 August 2020, titled: ‘Withdrawal of the United Kingdom and EU rules in the field of Civil Justice and Private International Law’—EU Notice 2020 • European Communities Act 1972—ECA 1972

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note considers the impact of the UK leaving the EU on the application of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) to determine jurisdictional disputes. This includes discussion of applicable provisions in the Withdrawal Agreement between the UK and the EU. Relevant domestic legislation is also discussed, including, where relevant, transitional provisions, as well as the position of the EU Commission. Finally, the implications of the UK becoming a third state in light of its departure from the EU are considered. It is important to be aware that there are other jurisdictional regimes that are impacted by the UK leaving the EU. For guidance, see Practice Note: Brexit post implementation period—considerations for dispute resolution practitioners—Jurisdiction. For specific guidance on the position during the implementation period, see Practice Note: Brexit implementation period—jurisdiction [Archived]. Definitions This Practice Note uses a number of definitions: • EU Commission notice to stakeholders dated 27 August 2020, titled: ‘Withdrawal

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note considers the application of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) to disputes involving non-EU Member States (often known as third states). It sets out the various provisions in this regulation that can apply to situations involving third states, all of which concern jurisdiction, and discusses the impact for the UK in the application of those provisions following its departure from the EU. Definitions This Practice Note using a number of definitions: • European Communities Act 1972—ECA 1972 • European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018—EU(W)A 2018 • European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020—EU(WA)A 2020 • exit day—is defined in EU(W)A 2018, s 20, as 31 January 2020 at 11 pm • Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements concluded on 30 June 2005 at The Hague—the Hague Convention • implementation period—is defined in EU(WA)A 2020, s 1 as the ‘transition or implementation period provided for by Part 4 of the withdrawal agreement and beginning with exit day and