Jurisdictional Considerations Within The UK

Image: Nicola Ricca/riccanicola/Unsplash
Image: Nicola Ricca/riccanicola/Unsplash

This is a well trodden path but one that nonetheless is not particularly straightforward and continues to pose problems for many clients.

The general rule regarding jurisdiction is that litigation should be brought in the country in which the defendant is domiciled. There are various exceptions to this rule, most commonly when the underpinning contract contains a jurisdictional clause agreeing that the courts of a particular country will have jurisdiction.

But what happens when the contract does not account for jurisdiction? The legal position on jurisdiction between the UK and other EU Member States is governed by the Brussels Regulation. However when considering jurisdiction between different countries within the UK, the principles of the Regulation are brought into UK domestic law and applied to internal UK jurisdiction by the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (“CJJA”).

Section 16 CJJA refers the question of determining jurisdiction within the UK to Schedule 4 CJJA. Paragraph 3(a) of Schedule 4 provides that in matters relating to a contract, a person domiciled in a part of the UK may be sued in another part of the UK, in the court of the place of performance of the obligation in question.

The defendant in proceedings can be sued in their place of domicile but the claimant is not obliged to do so. The position illustrates the general importance of pinning down assumptions into express contractual obligations. Indeed, jurisdictional clauses can put beyond doubt the parties’ intention as to which courts should have jurisdiction rather than leaving it to be disputed under the general legal rules of jurisdiction.

Jurisdictional issues can turn a relatively straightforward action in to a complex and costly piece of litigation, and it is imperative therefore that sufficient consideration is given to each case before issuing and also when in reciept of pleadings.

We recently had an English client who had issued proceedings against defendants pursuant to contracts of ‘Guarantee and Indemnity’. Pursuant to these contracts, the defendants agreed to guarantee the liabilities of a limited company pursuant to a contract of hire.

Proceedings against the defendants were issued and deemed served outside the jurisdiction in Scotland. The defendants filed an acknowledgement of service and subsequently filed defences purporting to contest the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court listed the matter for a hearing to determine the jurisdictional point.

Pursuant to CPR 11.1(1), a defendant who wishes to dispute the jurisdiction of the Court may apply to the Court for an order declaring that it has no jurisdiction. In accordance with rule 11.1(2) the defendant must first file an acknowledgement of service. Thereafter, any application under rule 11.1(1) must be made within 14 days of filing the acknowledgment of service and must be supported by evidence (rule 11.1(4)). Pursuant to rule 11.1(5), if the defendant files an acknowledgment of service and does not make an application with 14 days of doing so, he is “to be treated as having accepted that the Court has jurisdiction to try the claim.”

In our client’s claim, upon receipt of pleadings, the defendants had failed to make such an application within 14 days, or indeed at all. Following our instruction, we managed to successfully argue that for these reasons, the defendants must be treated as having accepted the jurisdiction of the English Courts. Our submissions were succesful and summary judgment was awarded in favour of our client.

The case stands as an example of the need to consider the correct jurisdiction before issuing a claim and the importance of being aware of/understanding the relevant rules.

Daniel Tate

Greenhalgh Kerr
Olympic House, Beecham Court,
Smithy Brook Rd,
Wigan WN3 6PR

View on google maps

+44 (0)333 200 5200

We are confident in our work and we know that recoveries is a key part of a lender or creditor’s business

We are confident in our work and we know that recoveries is a key part of a lender or creditor’s business. We have designed our pilot projects to give lenders and creditors the comfort and confidence in our service before formally and fully switching recoveries providers. This time also allows new clients to benchmark our service levers and results against existing providers and others.

How it works


You choose 10 recoveries cases

You choose 10 recoveries cases to get us started. We’ll deliver our usual onboarding protocol where we’ll get to know you and your systems, culture, methods, preferences, and requirements.


We get started

We assess each case by setting a strategy then grading and reporting on the case in terms of prospects and timescales and cost. We make immediate contact with debtors, and pursue a recovery in our tried and tested ways.


We review

We deliver ongoing, structured, tailored reports as per your needs and carry out a full 3-month review on these 20 cases. There we’ll discuss how we have worked together, patterns we have seen in your borrowers, your systems, your documents, your pre-legal conduct, outcomes, highs and lows, legal costs (and costs borne by debtors), and possible improvements in all of these.


No strings

We carry on working in this way until all cases have been concluded. You are then free to carry on your discussions with us or to use the experience and market intelligence gained by working with us in the future.

Lenders and creditors have nothing to lose, and everything to gain, by engaging with us on a pilot project.