ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note provides general background and an overview of the amendments to provisions in CPR 6, CPR 74 and Practice Direction 74A required to ensure consistency with the changes to the jurisdiction provisions now found in Brussels I (recast) which applied from 10 January 2015. Detailed information on the changes to the CPR which came into force on 10 January 2015 are set out in Practice Note: CPR changes—January 2015 (Brussels I (recast)) [Archived]. This Practice Note was updated in January 2015 and will not be subject to further update. The links in the Related Documents are to maintained documents and give the up to date position. Note: Lexis+® UK Dispute Resolution refers to Brussels I and Brussels I (recast). The provisions within the CPR will refer to the previous Judgments Regulation and the Judgments Regulation respectively. Background The CPR Committee made changes to CPR 6, CPR 74 and CPR PD 74A in light of the

This Practice Note explains choice of court agreements, as set out in Article 25 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). It covers a range of issues such as derogation, when Article 25 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) does not apply, whether hybrid agreements are covered, the effect on non-EU parties and the requirements for a valid choice of court agreement. It also covers the hearing and the standard of proof required. This Practice Note includes discussion of the application of Article 25 to the UK as a non-EU Member State (or a third state as they are often known) following its departure from the EU (subject to the application of transitional provisions in the Withdrawal Agreement). For general guidance on the application of this article to third states, as well as the other provisions of the regulation that are relevant to third states, namely Articles 18(1), 21(2), 24, 26, 33 and 34 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast), see Practice Note: Brussels I (recast)—application to third states [Archived]. Note

This Practice Note explains how contract claims are dealt with under Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). It considers the connecting factors required, the characteristics of the contract in terms of obligations, the place of performance and place of delivery. It also distinguishes between sale of goods and provision of services contracts. The provisions dealing with contract claims are set out in Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast), previously Article 5 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I. The recast of the regulation resulted in some changes to the provisions, but the Court of Justice’s interpretation of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I should be observed when considering the interpretation of Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) and its application. This can be seen from recital 34, of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) which emphasises a need for continuity. It provides that: ‘Continuity between the 1968 Brussels Convention, Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 and this Regulation should be ensured, and transitional provisions should

This Practice Note considers the court’s jurisdiction when dealing with consumer contracts as set out in Articles 17–19 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) which makes up section 4 of the regulation. This section provides added protection for consumers given that they are regarded as the weaker party in a dispute. The general rule is that the consumer can bring proceedings in the EU Member State in which they are domiciled even if the defendant is domiciled elsewhere. It is important to be aware of the definition of a ‘consumer’ and the difficulties that may arise when determining the application of the provisions. Overview of the consumer provisions This Practice Note sets out the relevant issues when considering jurisdiction in relation to consumer contracts under Brussels I (recast). It covers: • definition of a consumer (Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast))—identical to the provisions in Article 15 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I • classes of protected consumer contracts (Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast))—identical to the provisions in

This Practice Note is of assistance when seeking to determine which Member State’s courts have jurisdiction to hear an insurance claim. Specifically, it addresses the reforms in Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) as they relate to insurance matters. These are set out in the regulation at Chapter II, section 3 in Articles 10–16. This Practice Note considers the general rule that a defendant should be sued in the country in which they are domiciled and exemptions to that general rule when dealing with an insured who is regarded as the weaker party. The position where parties are on an equal footing is also explored. Additional protection, where there might otherwise be tacit prorogation of jurisdiction, is considered as is the impact of an agreed jurisdiction clause in an insurance dispute. Special regime for insurance matters The special insurance regime in Brussels I (recast) is largely the same as that under Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I. It is important to be aware that before considering whether the insurance regime applies, the court will consider whether

This Practice Note considers the different articles set out in Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) dealing with domicile of both the claimant and the defendant. Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) sets out the general rule that a defendant should be sued in their own domicile when they are domiciled in an EU Member State, while Article 63 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) deals with the jurisdiction in which a company/corporation should have proceedings brought against them. In cases in which the claimant is the more vulnerable party, eg consumer and insurance cases, specific provisions enable a claimant to commence proceedings in their own domicile rather than those of the defendant. For defendants not domiciled in an EU Member State, Article 6 applies. Domicile of the claimant When determining the court’s jurisdiction, the claimant's domicile is only of relevance in a limited number of situations. If they apply, the claimant may depart from the general rule in Article 4 (see: Domicile of the defendant—the general rule (Article 4) below) and commence proceedings

This Practice Note explains Article 24 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 (Brussels I (recast)) gives the courts of an EU Member State exclusive jurisdiction to determine specific types of claims, irrespective of the defendant’s domicile or any contrary party agreement. The Practice Note covers claims involving immovable property (Article 24(1)), a company’s constitution/corporate governance and validity of actions (Article 24(2)), public registry entries (Article 24(3)), IP rights (Article 24(4)) as well as all proceedings involving the enforcement of judgments (Article 24(5)). For general guidance on the application of this article to third states, as well as the other provisions of the regulation relevant to third states, namely Articles 18(1), 21(2), 25, 26, 33 and 34 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast), see Practice Note: Brussels I (recast)—application to third states [Archived]. This Practice Note refers to the following EU regulations: • Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) • Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I Remit of article 24 The provisions in Article 24 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) are mandatory. Article 24

This Practice Note considers Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) and the jurisdiction of the court when dealing with multiple defendants. The courts of an EU Member State have special jurisdiction to hear a dispute when a co-defendant is not domiciled in the jurisdiction but only if certain criteria are met. This Practice Note considers those criteria and how the Court of Justice has applied them in practice. In particular, it considers the meaning of ‘irreconcilable judgments’ and ‘anchor defendants’. Although this Practice Note is not focused on competition damages litigation, the Court of Justice’s reasoning in such cases is included where it is relevant to the interpretation of Article 8(1) more generally. Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) also covers three other bases on which the court would have special jurisdiction. For guidance, see Practice Note: Brussels I (recast)—third parties, counterclaims and rights in rem (art 8). Relevant article and recitals Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) provides: '8 A person domiciled in a Member State

This Practice Note considers the provisions in Article 29 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) which deal with multiple proceedings, specifically parallel proceedings involving the same cause of action and the same parties. The Practice Note considers how the courts deal with these types of proceedings and examples of how such proceedings are dealt with in practice are provided. These provisions were previously found in Article 27 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I. Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) contains some changes to the provisions previously found in Brussels I, but the case law on Article 27 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I will continue to inform the meaning of Article 29 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) and its application. This can be seen from Recital (34) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) which emphasises a need for continuity. It provides that: 'Continuity between the 1968 Brussels Convention, Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 and this Regulation should be ensured, and transitional provisions should be laid down to that end. The same need for continuity

This Practice Note considers the approach of the courts when related proceedings have been commenced in different jurisdictions within the EU. Related proceedings are proceedings in which multiple proceedings are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments which would result if separate proceedings were pursued. This Practice Note explains the meaning of ‘related proceedings’ as set out in Article 30 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) and explores the different issues the courts may consider when exercising their discretion to stay proceedings. In addition, to related proceedings, another form of multiple proceedings are ‘parallel proceedings’ or ‘lis pendens’. These are addressed in Article 29 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). For guidance on: • parallel proceedings, see Practice Notes: Brussels I (recast)—parallel proceedings (art 29) and Brussels I (recast)—the exception to the lis pendens rule (art 31(2)) • determining when a court is seised of proceedings, see Practice Note: Brussels I (recast)—when is a court seised? (art 32)

This Practice Note considers Article 25 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) and the requirements that need to be met to show the court there is an effective choice of court agreement between the parties. It provides background information as to the position already adopted by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on such agreements and what changes have been brought into place under the regulation and what that might mean in practice. Equivalent wording to Article 25 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) was found in its predecessors, being Article 17 of the Brussels Convention and Article 23 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I. Cases referenced in this Practice Note therefore include those decided under that convention and regulation as they are relevant to understanding the requirements of Article 25. For general information about choice of court agreements, see Practice Note: Brussels I (recast)—requirements for an effective choice of court agreement (art 25). Key requirements The general rule is that a defendant is

This Practice Note looks at the special jurisdiction provisions in Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast), when dealing with different types of claims and disputes. The special jurisdiction under Article 7 enables a claimant to bring proceedings against a defendant in a jurisdiction in which the defendant is not domiciled. Such jurisdiction is non-exclusive and so, if applicable, does not oust the jurisdiction of any other EU Member State. Matters relating to contract claims (art 7(1)) This area is addressed separately, see Practice Note: Brussels I (recast)—contract claims (Art 7(1)) . Matters relating to tort and delict claims (art 7(2)) This area is addressed separately, see Practice Notes: Brussels I (recast)—tort and delict claims (art 7(2)) and Brussels I (recast)—the harmful event (art 7(2)). Civil claims for damages or restitution based on criminal proceedings (art 7(3)) Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) provides, that in claims for damages or restitution based on criminal proceedings, a person domiciled in one EU Member State may be sued in the