UUÂãÁÄÖ±²¥

´³³Ü°ù¾±²õ»å¾±³¦³Ù¾±´Ç²Ô—p°ù¾±²Ô³¦¾±±è±ô±ð²õ


This Overview provides an introduction to the concept of jurisdiction in the context of civil litigation proceedings in England and Wales. Which courts have jurisdiction to determine a dispute is only one consideration when dealing with a cross border dispute. For an insight into the different issues that need to be considered, see: Cross border considerations—checklist.

What is jurisdiction?

Where a party commences proceedings in court, it is a prerequisite that the court has the power to determine the dispute between the parties ie it has jurisdiction. It is important to understand what is meant by the term ‘jurisdiction’ as the concept of jurisdiction is not limited to a territorial jurisdiction. The term is defined in CPR 2.3 and the court may have jurisdiction by means of:

  1. •

    territorial jurisdiction, or

  2. •

    the court’s power of authority

There is considerable overlap between jurisdiction and service when determining whether

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with UUÂãÁÄÖ±²¥ or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL
Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Dispute Resolution News

HMCTS issues guidance on issuing and managing a online money claims using MyHMCTS

HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has published guidance for legal professionals on issuing and managing specified online money claims through the MyHMCTS platform. The guidance outlines that claims up to £25,000 can be processed against represented or unrepresented defendants, provided they are for specified amounts, in English and do not fall under CPR 8 (alternative procedure for claims). The system requires legal representatives to be registered before issuing a claim. Detailed guidance is provided for issuing and managing claims as a legal professional.

Google to face £1bn class action over app store practices

Law360, London: The UK antitrust court gave an academic the go-ahead 6 March 2025 to bring a £1bn class action against Google on behalf of software developers over allegedly anticompetitive app store practices, clearing his litigation funding arrangement with amendments.

It’s the wrong defendant and limitation has expired—a solution (Office Properties PL Ltd (in liquidation) v Adcamp LLP)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The case arose from a claim with a significant error: it was brought against the wrong party. Furthermore, that error was not discovered until after limitation had expired. The practical significance of this case is that the situation may be remediable by substituting the correct party for the original wrong party under the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980). The correct defendant was the claimants’ former solicitors, and the claimants had believed the original defendant, a successor firm, was legally liable for the former solicitor’s wrongdoing. The court permitted the amendment substituting the correct defendant. It held that the claimants were asserting the same professional negligence claim but pursuing it against a new party, as opposed to asserting a different claim. The court did not seek to ‘punish’ the claimants for the error of their legal representatives and was prepared to excuse the mistake. Written by Heather Murphy, barrister at XXIV Old Buildings.

Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting—6 December 2024

The minutes of the CPR Committee (CPRC) meeting of 6 December 2025 (conducted in a hybrid format at The Rolls Building (Royal Courts of Justice) and via video conference) cover a number of issues including Closed Material Procedure, the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP), the Online Procedure Rule Committee, the outcome of the Workplace Claims consultation, the Service Sub-Committee, the Lacuna Sub-Committee and the contents of the winter Statutory Instrument and Practice Direction update.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :  
News
Practice notes
Precedents
Q&As

Popular documents

Determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction

Determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdictionThis Practice Note provides an overview into the issues the court will consider during applications in which a party either seeks to establish or to challenge the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales. Key elements are

Forum non conveniens—principles

Forum non conveniens—principlesThis Practice Note considers the doctrine of forum non conveniens, also referred to as the appropriate forum or the proper place for a dispute to be determined. This doctrine is of relevance when determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction to

Enforcing foreign judgments—common law principles

Enforcing foreign judgments—common law principlesThis Practice Note considers the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments applying common law. It explains the requirement for new enforcement proceedings in England and Wales with the foreign judgment as the cause of action. The Practice Note

Rome I—application and interpretation

Rome I—application and interpretationThis Practice Note provides an explanation as to when and why Regulation (EC) 593/2008, Rome I was introduced. It covers the implementation of Regulation (EC) 593/2008, Rome I and the countries which are signatories, and therefore subject to the regulation, and
Determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction

Determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction

Determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdictionThis Practice Note provides an overview into the issues the court will consider during applications in which a party either seeks to establish or to challenge the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales. Key elements are

Forum non conveniens—principles

Forum non conveniens—principles

Forum non conveniens—principlesThis Practice Note considers the doctrine of forum non conveniens, also referred to as the appropriate forum or the proper place for a dispute to be determined. This doctrine is of relevance when determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction to

Enforcing foreign judgments—common law principles

Enforcing foreign judgments—common law principles

Enforcing foreign judgments—common law principlesThis Practice Note considers the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments applying common law. It explains the requirement for new enforcement proceedings in England and Wales with the foreign judgment as the cause of action. The Practice Note

Rome I—application and interpretation

Rome I—application and interpretation

Rome I—application and interpretationThis Practice Note provides an explanation as to when and why Regulation (EC) 593/2008, Rome I was introduced. It covers the implementation of Regulation (EC) 593/2008, Rome I and the countries which are signatories, and therefore subject to the regulation, and