Practical Law

The Civil Procedure Rule Committee has approved a number of new jurisdiction gateways in PD 6B, as well as amendments to existing gateways, aimed at filling in perceived gaps in the current rules or, in some cases, clarifying their meaning. The changes are expected to come into effect in October this year and some of … Continue reading Expansion of jurisdiction gateways coming soon →

On 6 April 2021, new rules on witness evidence (through a new Practice Direction 57AC and accompanying Appendix with statement of best practice) will come into force in the Business and Property Courts (B&PCs). As I commented in my earlier blog post, this is no mere tinkering with the existing rules. Important changes are being made to … Continue reading New rules on trial witness statements from 6 April 2021: what should you be doing now? →

With the transition period following the UK’s exit from the EU having ended on 31 December, and no information on whether, and if so when, the UK might join the Lugano Convention 2007, attention has turned squarely to the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005. Where this Convention applies (that is, where there … Continue reading Does the Hague Choice of Court Convention 2005 apply to asymmetric jurisdiction clauses? →

The way witness statements are prepared for trials in the Business and Property Courts is set to change substantially, if proposals in a new draft Practice Direction (PD) and Appendix are adopted. The proposals arise out of the work of the Witness Evidence Working Group, set up in 2018 to consider possible reforms. The Working … Continue reading Preparing witness evidence: significant changes proposed for Business and Property Courts →

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought with it huge challenges for businesses dealing with ever more difficult trading conditions, while trying to safeguard the health and safety of employees and customers. All of this against a background of rapidly changing law, regulation and guidance.

With the imminent passing of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill, the UK is set to leave the EU on 31 January 2020 at 11.00 pm GMT under the terms of the revised withdrawal agreement of 19 October 2019 negotiated by Boris Johnson. That agreement provides for a transition period until the end of 2020, … Continue reading Enforcement of judgments between the UK and the EU post-Brexit: where are we now? →

In a worrying recent development, guidance has been issued by the European Commission which suggests exclusive English jurisdiction agreements entered into between October 2015 and exit day may not, in the case of a no-deal Brexit, come within the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005.

In the latest twist and turn of the Brexit rollercoaster, the UK and the EU have agreed a further extension of Article 50 until 31 October 2019; Halloween, as many have pointed out.

A no-deal Brexit could never be ruled out as a possibility, but the volatile political climate in recent days and weeks has brought it, and the challenges it poses, into ever sharper focus. So what would a no-deal Brexit mean for disputes and what questions should a business be asking its lawyers to advise on?

What jurisdiction clause should you choose with Brexit looming on the horizon? Well, unfortunately, I can’t give you a solution which will be perfect in every circumstance. As lawyers are fond of saying, it is going to depend on the particular facts.

If you choose to waive privilege over a selection of documents, it is well known that the waiver may extend further than you intended. This is the principle of “collateral waiver” or, more colloquially (and descriptively), the cherry-picking rule.

It is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that the Brussels jurisdiction regime applies to EU domiciled defendants and the common law rules apply to everyone else.

Last week we had two reports from Parliament on justice and Brexit. The House of Lords EU Committee came in first, with its report on 20 March. The House of Commons was not far behind, with the report of the Justice Committee published on 22 March.

As a junior litigator in the 1990s, it was drummed into me that if you were challenging the jurisdiction of the English court, you should be very, very careful not to do anything in the proceedings other than bring that challenge. If you didn’t heed this advice, the court would likely find that your client … Continue reading Taking steps without submitting to the jurisdiction: how far can you go? →

The UK government is going to be rather busy in the next few years, negotiating with the EU over a myriad of Brexit issues.

Having the benefit of a unilateral jurisdiction clause is, on the face of it, a good thing for your client.

In the first of our guest posts by members of the dispute resolution team at Herbert Smith Freehills, Anna Pertoldi looks at the traps involved in enforcing foreign judgments.