This Practice Note considers the exception to the lis pendens rule as set out in Article 31(2) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). The provision only applies where there is an exclusive jurisdiction agreement between the parties, also known as an exclusive choice of court agreement—it is not applicable where there is a non-exclusive jurisdiction agreement. Where Article 31(2) applies, the designated court in the agreement can determine whether it has jurisdiction notwithstanding that they are not the first court seised of the dispute. The lis pendens rule is set out in Article 29(1) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). For guidance, see Practice Note: Brussels I (recast)—parallel proceedings (art 29) Provisions in Article 31(2) Article 31(2) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) provides: ‘Without prejudice to Article 26, where a court of a Member State on which an agreement as referred to in Article 25 confers exclusive jurisdiction is seised, any court of another Member State shall stay the proceedings until such time as the court seised on the

This Practice Note considers the requirement for a harmful event to enable a court to have special jurisdiction under Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). It then considers what may constitute the place where the harmful event occurred for specific types of claims, including economic loss, damaged or defective goods, road traffic accident claims involving insurers and assignees, intellectual property claims and representative actions. For guidance: • on the general principles that apply when dealing with tort and delict claims under the regulation, see Practice Note: Brussels I (recast)—tort and delict claims (art 7(2)) • when dealing with contract claims under the regulation, see Practice Note: Brussels I (recast)—contract claims (Art 7(1)) Authorities When considering the construction and application of the wording in Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast), authorities decided under the same provisions in either Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I or the Brussels Convention will be applicable. This is because: • the wording of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast), is materially

This Practice Note considers Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) and exceptions to the general rule that a claimant must bring proceedings in the jurisdiction of the defendant’s domicile. It considers third parties, counter-claims and rights in rem. It does not deal with the provisions in Article 8(1) dealing with multiple defendants which is considered in Practice Note: Brussels I (recast)—multiple defendants (art 8). Third parties—art 8(2) Article 8(2) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) provides: ‘A person domiciled in a Member State may also be sued: (2) as a third party in an action on a warranty or guarantee or in any other third-party proceedings, in the court seised of the original proceedings, unless these were instituted solely with the object of removing him from the jurisdiction of the court which would be competent in his case.’ This provision is identical to that found in Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) 44/2001 Brussels I. Article 8(2) deals with the situation in which a defendant

This Practice Note explains how tort and delict claims are dealt with under Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). It considers the meaning of tort and delict claims under Article 7(2) and explains how the article is to be interpreted. One key element in the application of the article is the determination of where the harmful event occurred and this is considered alongside examples for specific types of claims. The Practice Note also considers the position on co-defendants and on claims for a declaration of non-liability in tort, delict or quasi-delict. It should be noted that Article 7(2) is a derogation from the general rule, set out in Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast), that the defendant is sued in the courts of the jurisdiction in which they are domiciled. For an understanding of the application of Article 4, see Practice Note: Brussels I (recast)—domicile (Arts 4 and 63). For guidance when dealing with contract claims under the regulation, see Practice Note: Brussels I (recast)—contract

This Practice Note considers when a court is seised of proceedings under Article 32 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). Deciding which court is first seised is fundamental to the operation of Articles 29–31 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) which concern the prevention and regulation of concurrent proceedings. Text of article 32 Article 32 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) replicates its predecessor provision in Article 30 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I and provides additional clarification. The beginning of Article 32 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) is identical to its predecessor provision: '1. For the purposes of this Section, a court shall be deemed to be seised: (a) at the time when the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document is lodged with the court, provided that the claimant has not subsequently failed to take the steps he was required to take to have service effected on the defendant; or (b) if the document has to be served before being lodged with the court,

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note sets out the provisions in Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I that need to be taken into account when determining which court has jurisdiction to deal with employment disputes. Note: since 10 January 2015 Brussels I has been repealed in its entirety and replaced by Brussels I (recast). However, transitional arrangements have been put in place. For information on those arrangements and whether Brussels I provisions still apply to the matter you are dealing with, see Practice Note: E&W Brussels I (recast)—application and exclusions. Individual contracts of employment—Section 5 Section 5 (arts 18–21) applies when determining which court has jurisdiction in relation to disputes over individual contracts of employment (art 18(1)). Note: where a dispute falls within Section 5, and there are multiple defendants, the provisions in art 6(1), which address jurisdiction issues when there are multiple defendants, cannot be applied to the dispute. What is an employment contract? To

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note considers the provisions in Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I (also known as the Judgments Regulation) dealing with insurance disputes. The basis of the provisions is to seek to ensure that the insured as the weaker party is protected and does not find themselves subject to court proceedings in the jurisdiction chosen by the insurer and with which they are likely to be unfamiliar. The Practice Note considers where an insurer may be sued and where an insured party may commence proceedings. Also considered are those cases where the parties are on an equal footing eg reinsurer v insurer. Note: since 10 January 2015 Brussels I has been repealed in its entirety and replaced by Brussels I (recast). However, transitional arrangements have been put in place. For information on those arrangements and whether Brussels I provisions still apply to the matter you are dealing with, see Practice Note: E&W Brussels I (recast)—application and exclusions. Section 3 and domicile (art 8) The aim

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note explains the provisions in Article 24 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I when submitting to the jurisdiction. The extent to which submission occurs is considered as well as the limitations to the application of Article 24 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I. The Practice Note also considers the conditions in which there may be no submission to the jurisdiction, as provided in Article 26 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I. If the defendant does not enter an appearance, the court may stay the proceedings. This situation is considered along with the practical issues, which arise when determining whether to stay proceedings on the basis that the defendant did not receive sufficient information to enter an appearance. The conditions for these two articles to apply are discussed, with a focus on what constitutes an appearance. Applications to extend time to dispute jurisdiction of the court are also considered. Note: since 10 January 2015 Brussels I has been repealed

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note explains how Brussels I applies. It sets out transitional arrangements, international requirements and what constitutes civil and commercial matters. It also sets out what is excluded by the regulation and how to deal with state immunity. Note: since 10 January 2015 Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I has been repealed in its entirety and replaced by Brussels I (recast). However, transitional arrangements have been put in place. For information on those arrangements and whether Brussels I provisions still apply to the matter you are dealing with, see Practice Note: E&W Brussels I (recast)—application and exclusions. Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 on jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters is referred to as Brussels I in this Practice Note. It is also known as the Judgments Regulation. Transitional arrangements When dealing with issues of enforcement, Article 66 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I dealing with transitional arrangements, should be interpreted to mean that for the regulation to have effect it must be in force in both the Member State

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note explains the arbitration exclusion in Brussels I and considers the provisions in Brussels I (recast). It also explores whether courts have jurisdiction to hear a dispute which is subject to an arbitration agreement and anti-suit injunctions. Note: since 10 January 2015 Brussels I has been repealed in its entirety and replaced by Brussels I (recast). However, transitional arrangements have been put in place. For information on those arrangements and whether Brussels I provisions still apply to the matter you are dealing with, see Practice Note: E&W Brussels I (recast)—application and exclusions. Introduction Courts have no jurisdiction to hear disputes subject to an arbitration agreement. Arbitration agreements are private agreements dispensing with the parties' right to have any dispute between them heard by national courts. Instead the parties agree for it to be determined by a tribunal generally chosen by the parties on the basis of their expertise in a specific area. It should be noted that the legislation in some jurisdictions enables courts to 'assist' in the arbitration process. For example, the English

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note looks at the exclusion of arbitration from the scope of Brussels I. In doing so it looks at the exclusion, the interplay between arbitration agreements and court jurisdiction as well as the proposed changes to the exclusion. Note: on 10 January 2015 Brussels I was repealed in its entirety and replaced by Brussels I (recast). However, there are transitional arrangements. For information on those arrangements and whether Brussels I provisions still apply to the matter you are dealing with, see Practice Note: E&W Brussels I (recast)—application and exclusions. Status of Brussels I judgments in arbitration proceedings If a court gives judgment that it has jurisdiction to hear a dispute, is that judgment binding on the court of a Member State in subsequent arbitration proceedings? In other words, does it create an issue estoppel preventing the English court from determining the same question? This was considered by the Court of Appeal in National Navigation. It held that such a

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note explains choice of court agreements as set out in Article 23 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I. It looks at the requirements to ensure an effective agreement as well as when the article does not apply. The Practice Note also covers the hearing, the standard of proof required and whether a court has exclusive or non exclusive jurisdiction. The effect on non—EU parties is also considered. Since 10 January 2015, Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I has been repealed in its entirety and replaced by Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). Transitional arrangements mean that Brussels I provisions may apply to the matter you are dealing with, see Practice Note: E&W Brussels I (recast)—application and exclusions. For information on types of jurisdiction clauses, see Practice Note: Jurisdiction agreements—introduction. What is a choice of court agreement? Article 23 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I makes provision for parties to agree which court or courts will have jurisdiction