Dispute Resolution analysis: this judgment identifies crucial considerations for those acting for defendants subject to foreign proceedings where a default judgment has been obtained. While recognition and enforcement of that judgment in England can be prevented it requires the defendant to oppose the default judgment in the foreign court; a requirement under art 34(2). In this case the default judgment was obtained 20 years after the events in question. While it may seem contrary to public policy to leave a defendant in limbo for so long, the civil claim was preceded by criminal proceedings and Belgium law suspends civil limitation periods during the period of the criminal proceedings. Understanding the foreign law relevant to the issues to be raised to prevent recognition and enforcement is therefore critical. The failure to do so in this case has left defendants subject to enforcement of a US$1 million claim for which they are jointly and severally liable.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note considers the provisions in Regulation 44/2001, Brussels I, also known as the Judgments Regulation, dealing with consumer disputes. The provisions seek to provide protection for consumers as the weaker parties in a contract. The Practice Note sets out the definition of a consumer and looks at the different classes of consumer contracts. The different positions for determining jurisdiction depending on whether the consumer is the claimant or the defendant are explained identifies the different types of consumers as well as the different types of contracts they may enter into. Note: since 10 January 2015, Regulation 44/2001, Brussels I has been repealed in its entirety and replaced by Regulation 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). Transitional arrangements apply. For information on those arrangements and whether Regulation 44/2001, Brussels I still applies to the matter you are dealing with, see Practice Note: E&W Brussels I (recast)—application and exclusions. Recital [13] of Regulation 44/2001, Brussels I provides that in 'relation to … consumer contracts

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note considers the provisions in relation to contract claims in Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 on jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels I). 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. For information on tort claims and maintenance claims in Brussels I, see Practice Note: Brussels I—non contract claims (art 5) [Archived]. Note: since on 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). However, transitional arrangements have been put in place. For information on those arrangements and whether Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I provisions still apply to the matter you are dealing with, see Practice Note: E&W Brussels I (recast)—application and exclusions. Jurisdiction under Brussels I Article 5 and Article 6 of Regulation

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived. This Practice Note considers the general rule in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I, which provides that defendants domiciled in an EU Member State shall, regardless of their nationality, be sued in the courts of that EU Member State. It also discusses Article 4 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I, which considers the consequences of a defendant not being domiciled in an EU Member State. The English law position in relation to determining whether individuals, companies and trusts are domiciled in the UK is also addressed. Note: since 10 January 2015 Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, Brussels I has been repealed in its entirety and replaced by Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, 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. Domicile—the general rule Claimant Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, Brussels I on jurisdiction and recognition

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note deals with the exclusive jurisdiction provisions in Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I, their interpretation and application. The objective of Article 22 is explained and the wording ‘principally concerned’ is defined. It also considers the impact of relevant ECJ judgments and the Jenard Report. Also covered are declining jurisdiction and how Article 22 applies to non-Member State defendants. 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. Tools for interpretation The Court of Appeal in Berliner identified a number of tools practitioners should use when seeking to interpret art 22. These are: • consideration of the wording of art 22 • the objective of art 22 • its position in Brussels

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note explores Article 22 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I, which provides a court with exclusive jurisdiction regardless of the domicile of the defendant or contrary agreement by the parties. The provisions can apply where you have claims involving immovable property, claims as to companies’ constitution and validity of actions, public registry entries, IP rights and all proceedings involving the enforcement of judgments. 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. General Article 22 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I is mandatory and provides that, in specific instances, Member States courts will have exclusive jurisdiction regardless of the domicile of the parties and any agreement by the

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note considers the jurisdiction of the court when dealing with multiple defendants. Article 6 of Brussels I provides the courts of a Member State with special jurisdiction to hear a dispute when the defendant is not domiciled in the jurisdiction if certain criteria are meet. It considers the various criteria and how the courts have applied them in practice. In particular, it considers the meaning of ‘anchor defendants’ and ’irreconcilable judgments’. 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. If Brussels I (recast) applies, see Practice Note: E&W Brussels I (recast)—multiple defendants (art 8) [Archived]. Note that the equivalent provision is set out in art 8 and the contents of the article itself

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note looks at the issues arising in relation to Article 5 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I, which deals with situations where the claimant can bring proceedings in a jurisdiction in which the defendant is not domiciled. It covers tort and delict as well as other non contractual claims. Note: 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). 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. Article 5 and Article 6 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I deal with situations where the claimant is able to choose to bring proceedings in a jurisdiction in which the defendant is not domiciled. The articles confer non exclusive jurisdiction and so do not oust the jurisdiction of any other EU

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note explains what parallel proceedings are, as set out in Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I together with their impact on the courts dealing with these types of proceedings. The requirements to show that parallel proceedings exist are explained and examples of how they have been applied in practice are provided. 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. What are parallel proceedings? Parallel proceedings are: • proceedings are brought in two or more EU Member States • the proceedings run concurrently, and • the proceedings involve: ◦ the same parties ◦ the same causes of action Practical consideration: in terms of what the proceedings must involve, the English translation

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note explains what ‘related proceedings’ are as set out in article 28 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I. It explores the different issues the court may consider when exercising its discretion to stay proceedings. 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 are in place and so Brussels I will continue to apply in certain circumstances. For information on the transitional arrangements, see Practice Note: Guide to Brussels I (recast) [Archived]—Transitional arrangements. What is the relevant provision in Brussels I? Brussels I is the Regulation (EC) No. 44/ 2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. Article 28 is to be given a broad construction applying The Maciej Rataj, a case determined under the equivalent provisions in the precursor to Brussels I being the Brussels Convention. The provisions

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note considers the requirements in Article 23 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I which need to be met to show the court that there is an effective choice of court agreement between the parties. It provides background information as to the position adopted by the European Court on such agreements. For general information in relation to choice of court agreements and Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I, see Practice Note: Brussels I—choice of court agreements (art 23). 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. The three requirements For the agreement to be effective, it needs to comply with three conditions set out in Article

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note considers exceptions to the general rule that a claimant must bring proceedings in the jurisdiction of the defendant’s domicile under Article 6 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I. It examines the three different situations under Article 6 being the impact of third parties, counterclaims and dealing with claims involving rights in rem ie against movable property. Note: 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). However, transitional arrangements have been put in place. For information on those arrangements and whether Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I provisions still apply to the matter you are dealing with, see Practice Note: E&W Brussels I (recast)—application and exclusions. Introduction Article 6 of Brussels I (Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters) deal with situations in which the claimant is able to