ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained.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 Note: since 10 January 2015 Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I has been repealed in its entirety and replaced by Brussels I (recast).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ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained.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 Note: since 10 January 2015 Brussels I has been repealed in its entirety and replaced by Brussels I (recast).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ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained.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

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note considers the meaning of tort, quasi delict and delict in Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I. It covers how Article 5(3) is to be interpreted—a pivotal aspect of that interpretation being how to determine where the harmful event giving rise to the damage occurred. The Practice Note also considers where the harmful event occurs in relation to specific types of claim being economic loss, damaged and defective goods, intellectual property claims, actions for inducing reach of contract and personal injury claims. The Practice Note also deals with claims with co-defendants and considers the issue of seeking a declaration that a party does not have any liability in either tort or delict. 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

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note considers the question of when a court is seised of proceedings under article 30 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I. Deciding which court is first seized is fundamental to the operation of articles 27 and 28 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I, which concern the prevention and regulation of concurrent proceedings. 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. Text of article 30 Article 30 provides: '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

Sets out a system for the allocation of jurisdiction and for the reciprocal enforcement of judgments.

An independent review commissioned by the UK government in December 2018 and led by Sir Donald Brydon, into standards in the UK audit market. The Brydon review published its final report in December 2019.

An arrangement whereby investments are selected on the basis that they will be needed when mature, so that if money is needed to pay pensions, a series of bucket funds will mature on a series of dates when the money is needed.