Jurisdiction meaning

Introduction to freezing injunctions and scope of this checklist A freezing injunction (also known as a freezing order) is a temporary court order that prevents a respondent from disposing of or transferring its assets out of the relevant jurisdiction—namely England and Wales—or, in the case of a worldwide freezing order (WFO), from moving them anywhere in the world. The court’s principal aim in granting such relief is to preserve the respondent’s assets so that, if the applicant later obtains judgment against the respondent, there will be assets available for recovery by the applicant and, if necessary, enforcement action. This Checklist explains how to make an application for a freezing injunction where claims are contemplated or already underway in a corporate or personal insolvency context. As the precise circumstances of each matter must be assessed, this Checklist does not claim to be exhaustive; rather, it provides an overview of the key considerations at each stage when seeking an order of this kind. The focus throughout is asset preservation pending determination...

This Checklist sets out the key points to consider when advising a prospective claimant on a potential breach of warranty claim arising from a share purchase agreement (SPA). The same broad approach will apply to an asset purchase agreement (APA). For additional guidance on breach of warranty claims, see the related content links on the right-hand side. Read this Checklist together with Practice Note: Starting an SPA breach of warranty claim—a practical guide... Action Comments Review the SPA Check the: governing/choice of law provisions — is the agreement governed by English law? jurisdiction provisions — do the English courts have jurisdiction? warranty provisions and warranty limitation provisions — does the issue fall within the warranties and are you within the time limit to bring a breach of warranty claim? Note all deadlines in the agreement that could be relevant to any potential warranty claim... Review the disclosure letter Confirm that the issue has not been disclosed against...

This Checklist This Checklist highlights key matters to weigh up when preparing and finalising a retention bond for a construction scheme. For additional guidance on retention bonds, see Practice Note: Retention bonds. Parties A party whose registered office is outside England and Wales may need to nominate an address for service within England and Wales. Consider carefully before accepting a surety located beyond the UK and, where relevant, confirm the surety is properly authorised to issue bonds in the UK. Always include company registration numbers to enable future identification of the companies. ...

This Flowchart This Flowchart outlines the key questions to consider when assessing the territorial reach or scope of statutory employment rights—specifically, which statutory rights, if any, apply to an employee who works abroad and/or has a foreign employer. For general guidance on territorial application or scope, see Practice Note: The territorial scope of statutory employment rights. For Flowcharts that address applicable law and jurisdiction, refer to Determining applicable law in employment disputes—flowchart and Determining jurisdiction in employment disputes (1 January 2021 onwards)—flowchart...

This Flowchart sets out the consumer cancellation rights that must be made available to consumers entering on-premises contracts, off-premises contracts and distance contracts for the supply of services Use this guide when a practitioner needs to verify which cancellation entitlements apply to consumers purchasing services in accordance with the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, SI 2013/3134 (CCR 2013). Note 1—a consumer is an individual acting for purposes that are wholly or mainly outside their trade, business, craft or profession. Note 2—certain sector-specific contracts are regulated separately, such as financial services contracts, rental contracts and package travel contracts, and are excluded in full from the CCR 2013. For more information, see Practice Note: Distance, doorstep and on-premises sales—Excluded contracts...

Flowchart This Flowchart outlines the key questions for deciding international jurisdiction in employment matters—namely, the appropriate forum for bringing proceedings and identifying the court and/or tribunal competent to hear the claim—applicable to proceedings commenced on or after 1 January 2021. For additional guidance on jurisdiction in employment disputes from 1 January 2021 onwards, consult Practice Note: International jurisdiction—the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 in employment cases as set out therein...

Antitrust Court of Justice dismisses appeal relating to the calculation of the fine in the pre-stressing cartel case The Court of Justice has delivered its ruling in Case C-70/23, Westfälische Drahtindustrie and Others v Commission, on an appeal brought against the General Court’s judgment in Case T-275/20. That judgment had rejected an action seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 30 June 2010, as later amended on 30 September 2010, in the pre-steel cartel matter (AT.38344) (the Commission’s 2010 decision). In 2010, the Commission imposed fines on Westfälische Drahtindustrie GmbH (WDI) and Westfälische Drahtindustrie Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (WDV), holding WDI jointly and severally liable with WDV and Pampus, for their participation in a cartel covering the supply of pre-stressing steel. On 15 July 2015, the General Court dismissed an appeal against the Commission’s 2010 decision (the General Court’s 2015 judgment). While it considered that the Commission had erred in its assessment of arguments on ability to pay, the General Court, exercising its unlimited jurisdiction, concluded...

Bayerische Landesbank and another v Ruschemalliance LLC [2024] EWHC 1822 (Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? In keeping with comparable determinations, this judgment succinctly sets out the jurisdictional thresholds and principal considerations the court applies when evaluating applications for anti‑suit injunctions. It underscores the judiciary’s practical bent and operates as a constructive illustration of inter‑court co‑ordination, projecting a clear signal where numerous contests flow from identical underlying events, even though such matters are dealt with at varying moments and tiers of the court structure. In sum, the outcome reasserts the English courts’ steadfast commitment to upholding arbitration, including in circumstances where the arbitral seat is situated in a foreign state. What was the background? In 2021, the defendant, Ruschemalliance LLC (“RCA”), a Russian entity, entered into two Engineering, Procurement and Construction agreements for the development of liquefied natural gas and gas processing plant facilities in Russia. The obligations owed by RCA’s counterparties, the German companies Linde GmbH and Renaissance Heavy Industries LLC (together,...

On 7 April 2026, Dyson secured an interim injunction against Chinese rival Dreame after the UPC tribunal held that the ‘Dazzle’ hair styler infringed Dyson’s patent, compelling a suspension of sales throughout all UPC Member States and Spain. The Hamburg Local Division explained that including Spain (despite it not being a UPC Member State) was warranted because Dreame’s EU-based importer was actively putting the goods on the Spanish market, thereby creating a sufficiently close jurisdictional connection to hear the claims together under EU jurisdictional rules. The panel, chaired by Sabine Klepsch, declined to stretch the order to the UK. Citing the UK–EU Windsor Framework, under which certain EU product safety requirements still apply in Northern Ireland and oblige non‑EU manufacturers to appoint an EU-based representative to place goods there, Dyson argued this regulatory nexus tied UK sales to the EU and could ground UPC jurisdiction. The judges disagreed, concluding those provisions are principally intended to smooth trade between Northern Ireland and the EU, not to create an adequate legal link...

For many years, virtually every disagreement about agricultural tenancies was sent to arbitration at the outset. The rationale was that questions concerning agricultural holdings often have a strong practical dimension, so arbitration was thought a more suitable forum than the courts. This reflected the earlier assumption that practical considerations predominated in such cases, making a court reference less apt back then. Over time, however, matters of considerable legal intricacy also came before arbitrators. With the enactment of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003 (AH(S)A 2003), policy shifted, and the main route for resolving disputes about agricultural tenant issues is now referral to the Scottish Land Court. At the same time, arbitration procedures were streamlined, and alternative processes, eg mediation, were enabled. Although the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991 (AH(S)A 1991) still sets out distinct mechanisms for dispute resolution, AH(S)A 2003 has substantially reshaped them, so that the arrangements for resolving disputes under 1991 Act Tenancies are, in large part, aligned with those for 2003 Act Tenancies...

Context Jurisdiction clauses frequently appear in commercial contracts and are typically framed as either: Exclusive jurisdiction clauses (see Practice Note:Jurisdiction agreements—exclusive jurisdiction agreements) Non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses (see Practice Note: Jurisdiction agreements—non-exclusive jurisdiction agreements) Where parties have chosen an exclusive jurisdiction term, the default position is that the English court will ordinarily ‘exercise its discretion… to secure compliance with the contractual bargain’. Such provisions now appear ever more often in trust instruments. Nevertheless, several questions arise concerning: the drafting of such clauses the areas to be covered by such clauses the interpretation and effects of such clauses Two examples of jurisdiction clauses As presently encountered, trust jurisdiction provisions create a series of connected issues, including how they are drafted, what they should cover, and how they are interpreted and what they achieve. Before considering their operation, it is useful to look at a couple of typical illustrations: a Jersey law...

This Practice Note outlines the concept of parental responsibility for children under section 3 of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989). It describes what sits within the scope of parental responsibility and how the courts have read this concept in connection with matters such as education, religious upbringing, consent to medical treatment, changing a child’s surname, and removing a child from the jurisdiction. Definition Parental responsibility relates to the care and raising of a child until they reach adulthood. Under the ChA 1989, parental responsibility comprises all the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority that, in law, a parent holds in respect of their child and the child’s property. It also embraces the rights, powers and duties that a guardian of the child’s estate (appointed before the ChA 1989 commenced) possessed in relation to the child’s property. Those rights extend to receiving or recovering, in the guardian’s own name for the child’s benefit, property of any description and wherever located to which the child is entitled to receive...

This Agreement is dated [ date ] Parties [ insert name of the pursuer ], a company registered in Scotland (no [ insert company number ]), whose [ registered office OR principal place of business ] is at [ insert address ] (the Pursuer) [ and ] [ ; ] [ insert name of defender ], a company registered in Scotland (no [ insert company number ]), whose [ registered office OR principal place of business ] is at [ insert address ] (the Defender). Each being a Party and, together, the Parties. Whereas (A) [ Insert details of the background to the dispute eg ‘The Parties entered into a contract for the supply of certain goods etc ]. (B) A dispute has emerged between the Parties regarding [ insert details of the dispute ] (the Dispute). (C) [ Proceedings were raised by the Pursuer against the Defender on [ date ] by way of [ Summons OR...

This Agreement, dated [ • ] 20[ • ], is entered into between the following parties: Parties [ insert name of Borrower ], a company incorporated in England and Wales with registered number [ insert company number ], whose registered office is at [ insert address ] (the Borrower); and [ insert name of Lender ] of [ insert address ] (the Lender). Background (A) [ insert description of background to transaction ]. (B) The Lender has agreed to provide the Facility (as defined below) to the Borrower on the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement...

This Agreement is entered into on [ date ] Parties [ Insert name of party ] [ of OR a company incorporated in England and Wales under number [ insert registered number ] with its registered office at ] [ insert address ] (Party 1); and [ Insert name of party ] [ of OR a company incorporated in England and Wales under number [ insert registered number ] with its registered office at ] [ insert address ] (Party 2), each of Party 1 and Party 2 being a party and, together, the parties. BACKGROUND Party 1 supplies [ insert description of goods and/or services ]. Party 2 supplies [ insert description of goods and/or services ]. The parties intend to submit a Bid as a joint tender to the Customer in answer to the Invitation to Tender. The parties seek to state their obligations and manage their rights concerning the Bid and, if the...

The court holds comprehensive jurisdiction to sanction or decline a financial remedy consent order embodying the parties’ bargain (see section 33A of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) and the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, 9.26). Yet the court is neither ‘a rubber stamp’ nor a ‘bloodhound’ or ‘forensic ferret’ (see Pounds v Pounds and L v L). Its jurisdiction cannot be excluded. The court undertakes an autonomous and independent evaluation to enable it to discharge and fulfil its statutory duties by reference to the relevant factors set out in the MCA 1973, s 25...

Both the High Court and the Family Court possess jurisdiction to issue injunctions, whether interlocutory or final, and to appoint a receiver whenever it is considered just and convenient to do so. Any order can be made unconditionally or subject to such terms and conditions as the court deems appropriate, pursuant to section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, which applies in the Family Court as it does in the High Court...

Ordinary residence Section 39(4) of the Care Act 2014 (CA 2014) states that a person provided with accommodation under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (MeHA 1983) is, for the purposes of the Act, to be treated as ordinarily resident in England or Wales, and the local authority accordingly has a duty to arrange the services required by MeHA 1983, s 117. That responsibility continues until the integrated care board or Local Health Board and the local social services authority are satisfied that the individual no longer needs aftercare... Although CA 2014 does not set out a definition of ordinary residence, the phrase bears its everyday meaning. In this context, ordinarily resident refers to a person’s home in a specific place or country which they have chosen voluntarily, and it involves matters of both fact and degree...