Territorial proceedings meaning

Background to and scope of this flowchart An individual who conducts a regulated activity in the UK in the course of business, where no relevant exclusion or exemption applies, must be authorised under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000). For details and context on the consequences of carrying on a regulated activity without authorisation, consult Practice Note: The general prohibition and implications of its breach. For an explanation of what it means to carry on business in the UK, see Practice Notes: What does 'by way of business' mean? and Territorial scope of the general prohibition. For guidance on exemptions and exclusions that may apply in particular circumstances, refer to Practice Notes: Regulated activities—exempt persons and Exclusions and exemptions relating to the general prohibition—an introduction...

The UPC's Court of Appeal On 6 March 2026, the UPC’s Court of Appeal paused the patent infringement proceedings that Dyson Technology Ltd (Dyson) had initiated against Hong-Kong-based rival hairdryer maker Dreame International (Hongkong) Ltd (Dreame) and a Spanish business acting in the EU as its ‘authorised representative’, in order to obtain guidance from the Court of Justice of the European Union on how the actions should progress. Dyson had requested that the UPC grant a preliminary injunction preventing Dreame from marketing hairdryers said by Dyson to infringe one of its patents across UPC territory, and also in Spain, which has never acceded to the EU’s patent court. The UPC’s Hamburg Division then issued an injunction restraining two Dreame companies, together with Eurep GmbH (Eurep) — described as an authorised representative for Dreame in Europe — from distributing specified hairdryer models within the UPC...

On 6 November 2024, the court held that the heirs could not overturn the Paris Court of Appeal’s decision, according to a statement issued by a Malaysian minister. The appeals court also found in favour of Malaysia, concluding that the US$15bn award was invalid and therefore of no effect under French law. In a statement on 7 November 2024, Minister Azalina Othman Said said the Court of Cassation (France’s supreme court for civil and criminal matters) confirmed that the original US$15bn award to the heirs was a ‘sham’. The Supreme Court agreed with the Paris Court of Appeal that Gonzalo Stampa — the Spanish lawyer and arbitrator who first ordered Malaysia to pay the heirs US$15bn in a territorial dispute — wrongly decided he had jurisdiction to hear their claims and to make such orders. The higher court added that the governing contract stipulated such disputes could only be brought before the British general consul in Borneo. Following this ruling, Othman Said noted in her statement, the Paris...

JX v FTI Touristik GmbH, Case C-774/22 What are the practical implications of this case? The JX v FTI Touristik GmbH judgment is a landmark illustration of how the Brussels I (recast) Regulation reinforces consumer protection by enabling consumers to pursue proceedings in their local court. Crucially, the ruling prevails over domestic procedural rules, including those in Germany, which would ordinarily oblige a consumer to sue at the trader’s seat. By contrast, the Regulation permits consumers to bring actions before their home courts, even where the company is established in the same Member State. This is especially pertinent where the contract has cross-border features, for example international travel, as it lightens the legal burden on consumers. For firms, the decision means they must be ready to defend claims away from their place of business, potentially at the consumer’s home forum. This may drive up legal spend and calls for careful scrutiny of jurisdiction clauses in consumer contracts, where national law permits their use. Legal advisers should alert clients...

As of 31 January 2020, the UK left the EU and the EEA. This Practice Note introduces: the General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (EU GDPR) framework (which applied within UK law up to the end of the Brexit implementation period—11 pm UK time on 31 December 2020—and continues to operate across the EEA; therefore, any references in this Practice Note to EEA or EU states should be read as also covering the UK until that period concluded) the United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation, Retained Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (UK GDPR) framework (which applies under UK law from the end of the Brexit implementation period) Where there is no need to draw a distinction, this Practice Note refers to both as ‘GDPR’ for ease. When looking at the routine processing of personal data, the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018) should be consulted together, as both sets of provisions have direct effect. Practitioners will generally...

This Practice Note reviews how courts in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA, Saudi, Saudi Arabia) recognise and enforce both local and international arbitral awards under Saudi law. The relevant legal framework The Saudi Arbitration Law, promulgated by Royal Decree No. M/34 on 16 April 2012 (the Arbitration Law), and grounded in the UNICTRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Under Article 2, it governs arbitrations seated in Saudi Arabia, and also proceedings conducted abroad where the parties have designated the Arbitration Law as the governing law of the arbitration. The Implementing Regulations of the Arbitration Law, issued pursuant to Cabinet of Ministers’ decision number 541 on 22 May 2017 (the Implementing Regulations of the Arbitration Law). The Enforcement Law, enacted by Royal Decree No. M/53 dated 30 July 2012 (the Enforcement Law). The Implementing Regulations of the Enforcement Law, issued by Cabinet of Ministers decision number 526 on 9 November 2017 (the Implementing Regulations of the Enforcement Law). Saudi Arabia’s 1994...

Overview of challenges to Egyptian court jurisdiction This Practice Note outlines the legal bases for contesting the jurisdiction of Egyptian courts. Jurisdiction is set by Articles 28–35 of the Law of Civil and Commercial Procedures (the 'LCCP'). These provisions determine when those courts may hear a dispute. The organising principle is territorial: the default forum is tied to the defendant’s domicile or residence, and courts apply the internationally recognised rule accordingly, save for in rem disputes involving interests in property. In rem jurisdiction: where the claim concerns a property, proceedings must be brought before the court whose geographical area covers the location of that property, as this is the court empowered to seize and hold it for legal purposes. Consequently, Egyptian courts have jurisdiction over any defendant, whether Egyptian or foreign, who resides in, or is domiciled in, Egypt. See Cour de Cassation, Challenge No. 145 for judicial year 62 (Decision 15 May 2000); and Cour de Cassation, Challenge No. 952 for judicial year 71 (Decision 12 January...

This Agreement is entered into on [ insert date ] (the Commencement Date). Parties [ insert name ], [ of, or a company incorporated in [ England and Wales ] with registered number [ insert registered number ] and registered office at ] [ insert address ] (Party A); and [ insert name ], [ of, or a company incorporated in [ England and Wales ] with registered number [ insert registered number ] and registered office at ] [ insert address ] (Party B). (Each of Party A and Party B is a party and, together, Party A and Party B are the parties). Background (A) Party A is the [ registered ] proprietor of certain trade marks that cover [ describe goods/services to which Party A’s trade marks relate ] as set out in Schedule 1. (B) Party B is the [ registered ] proprietor of certain trade marks that cover [ describe goods/services to which Party...