ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained.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 Note: since 10 January 2015 Brussels I has been repealed in its entirety and replaced by Brussels I (recast).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ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained.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 Note: since 10 January 2015 Brussels I has been repealed in its entirety and replaced by Brussels I (recast).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ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained.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

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