jurisdiction and applicable law meaning

More than 150 jurisdictions operate merger control, or regimes akin to it. Within these systems, competition regulators may prohibit a deal entirely, or approve it subject to remedies, whether agreed or imposed. This Checklist sets out practical points to bear in mind when managing filing obligations across multiple jurisdictions. For overviews of merger control rules in every jurisdiction, see MJ merger grid—jurisdiction and MJ merger grid—procedure. For distilled takeaways, consult Key learning points from MJ reviews—anomalies, absurdities and potential pitfalls. It also flags issues commonly seen in practice. Guidance is provided in those resources. What transactions fall within merger control rules? Relevant transactions Across most regimes, including the EU, merger control captures any deal that places formerly independent undertakings under common control. Control is often defined broadly. Acquisitions of control—sole v joint control Control can rest with a single party, or be shared with one or more others: sole control: a shareholder that acquires control can take strategic decisions for the target without...

ARCHIVED: This Checklist has been archived and is no longer maintained. For up-to-date guidance, please refer to: Governing law and jurisdiction clauses in commercial contracts―checklist. Brexit: As of exit day (11pm on 31 January 2020) the UK is no longer an EU Member State. However, in line with the Withdrawal Agreement, the UK entered an implementation period, during which it continues to be subject to EU law. This affects this Checklist. For further guidance, see Brexit Bulletin—key updates, research tips and resources, and the Brexit collection. This Checklist assesses the implications of Brexit for drafting and negotiating dispute resolution clauses. It looks at the position regarding: Applicable law clauses (also referred to as governing law clauses or choice of law clauses) Jurisdiction clauses The enforcement of judgments The service of documents...

ARCHIVED: This document is retired and no longer being maintained...

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...

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...

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,...

In this issue: Key DR developments Cross-border disputes Pre-action and limitation Litigation Case management Evidence and disclosure ADR Scottish Dispute Resolution Dates for your diary Useful information Daily and weekly news alerts Key DR developments Guidance and reports Courts and Tribunals Judiciary publishes February 2026 updated edition of the Equal Treatment Bench Book: The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has issued an interim February 2026 update to the Equal Treatment Bench Book. For more information, see: Courts and Tribunals Judiciary publishes February 2026 updated edition Equal Treatment Bench Book—LNB News 26/02/2026 28. HCCH publishes 2025 annual report highlighting private international law developments The Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) has released its 2025 annual report, noting the creation of two new Experts’ Groups to examine private international law topics linked to Digital Tokens and Carbon Markets. For more information, see: HCCH publishes 2025 annual report highlighting private international law...

Oswin v Otila; and Ondray Claim No ARB 032/2025 What was the background? This matter arose from a falling-out between Oswin (the Claimant) and Ondray (the Second Defendant) over how to run their joint venture company, Otila (the First Defendant). Oswin owned 49% of the First Defendant’s shares and Ondray 51%. The board could act only by unanimous vote, while shareholder resolutions required a 75% super-majority. When they were unable to agree on management and operations, the company became deadlocked. Their relationship was governed by a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) dated 12 March 2019, which included an arbitration clause calling for DIFC-seated proceedings under the DIFC-LCIA Rules. The Claimant also operated a medical and hazardous waste facility under an Operations and Management Agreement due to expire on 21 August 2025. On 15 August 2025, the Claimant issued a Dispute Notice under clause 21.2 of the JVA, alleging that the Second Defendant was assuming strategic decision-making without proper authority—covering directions on renewal of the O&M Agreement, instruction of external...

This Practice Note has been prepared in collaboration with Anthony Partridge of Ogier, Cayman Islands, and Wisdom Hon of Ogier, Hong Kong. Introduction For individuals who are not domiciled in the Cayman Islands but personally hold assets located in the Cayman Islands, they may put in place a separate Will governed by Cayman Islands law to dispose of those assets and ease the subsequent probate process. Under Cayman Islands law, the governing law for both the formal validity and the essential/material validity of a Will made by a person domiciled abroad depends on the nature of the assets concerned. For immovable property situated in the Cayman Islands, the applicable law is the lex situs, namely the law of the Cayman Islands. For movable property, including cash held in bank accounts or shares in Cayman Islands companies (such as Cayman Islands exempted companies), the applicable law is the law of the deceased’s last domicile. It should be noted that not all shares connected with the...

This Practice Note examines the powers of the arbitral tribunal under the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Arbitration Rules (the UNCITRAL Rules). For an introduction to the UNCITRAL Rules, see Practice Note: UNCITRAL Rules—background and introduction. For guidance on appointing the tribunal, see Practice Note: UNCITRAL Rules—appointment of the arbitral tribunal. A core feature of the UNCITRAL arbitration framework is the authority vested in the tribunal. The UNCITRAL Rules grant the arbitral tribunal extensive powers over the management and timetable of the proceedings, evidence, the making of awards, interim measures and the allocation of costs. General power of the arbitral tribunal The tribunal may conduct the proceedings in such manner as it deems appropriate, provided it treats the parties equally and affords each party a reasonable opportunity to present its case (UNCITRAL Rules, Article 17(1)). The broad discretion conferred on the tribunal is a fundamental tenet of UNCITRAL arbitration and is derived from the original 1976 UNCITRAL Rules...

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived and not kept up to date. Practical implications of West Tankers In short, the current position arising from the West Tankers saga (so far) is: Any EU Member State court seised of proceedings must rule on its own jurisdiction to determine the dispute. Under Brussels I and Brussels I (recast), courts of another Member State cannot remove that competence from it. An arbitral tribunal has jurisdiction to award damages for breach of an obligation to arbitrate. Where jurisdiction is disputed (as it often is), consider advising clients to obtain a standalone final award addressing jurisdiction at the outset, and then seek to have it recognised and enforced by the court (the application would be made under the procedure set out in CPR 62). This should prevent a conflicting court judgment taking precedence, on the basis of issue estoppel. Thereafter, the parties can proceed to the liability and quantum issues within the arbitration. West Tankers—the...

This Agreement is executed on [ date ] Parties 1 [ Name of company ] , a company constituted in [ Scotland ] bearing registered number [ number ] with its registered office at [ address ] (the Company ); and 2 [ Name of employee ] , of [ address ] ( you )...

1 Definitions and interpretation 1.1 Within these Conditions, the terms below shall have the following meanings: Adequate Procedures – to be interpreted in accordance with BA 2010 and the guidance issued under it; Affiliate – any entity that, directly or indirectly, Controls, is Controlled by, or is under common Control with, another entity; Applicable Law – all applicable laws, legislation, statutory instruments, regulations, and governmental guidance having binding effect, whether local or national [ or international in any relevant jurisdiction ]; Associated Person – means any or all of: (a) a party’s officers, employees, agents, subcontractors, subsidiaries, and persons Associated With that party (the Associates); and (b) persons Associated With any of the Associates, in each case engaged in performing services for or on behalf of that party, the Services and/or the Contract; Associated With – when used: (a) in clause 10 and in respect of bribery, shall be read in accordance with BA 2010 and the guidance published under it; (b)...

THIS DOCUMENT IS IMPORTANT AND REQUIRES YOUR IMMEDIATE ATTENTION. If you are uncertain about the Offer or what steps to take, you should obtain immediately your own personal, independent financial advice from your stockbroker, bank manager, solicitor, accountant or another independent financial adviser duly authorised under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (as amended) if you are resident in the United Kingdom, or, if you do not, from a suitably and appropriately duly authorised independent financial adviser. If you have sold, sell or otherwise transferred all of your Shares (other than pursuant to the Offer), please promptly forward this document together with any accompanying materials (but not any personalised Form of Acceptance) to the purchaser or transferee, or to the stockbroker, bank or other agent through whom the sale or transfer was arranged, for onward delivery to the purchaser or transferee. Nevertheless, do not distribute, forward or transmit these documents in or into any jurisdiction where doing so would breach, contravene or otherwise infringe the relevant...