We use cookies to improve your website experience. To learn about our use of cookies and how you can manage your cookie settings, please see our Cookie Policy. By continuing to use the website, you consent to our use of cookies. Close

CHAPTER 27 Disputing the jurisdiction of the English court

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments

Page 584


Disputing the jurisdiction of the English court

27.01 General

In the terminology now used in English law, the jurisdiction of a court may be disputed in two distinct senses. The defendant may contend that there is no, or no sufficient, basis for the claimant to say that the law gives the English court jurisdiction over him in respect of the claim. If that contention succeeds, the court should declare that it has no jurisdiction, and set aside any service which has been made because this is the necessary consequence of its decision on the jurisdiction question. This may be thought of as disputing the existence of jurisdiction; and it is provided for in CPR rule 11(1)(a). In this Chapter the primary focus is on disputing the jurisdiction in this sense, the CPR rule 11(1)(a) sense. A number of the strands have been examined at earlier points in this book; the topic is organised here for convenience and for completeness. The second manner in which a defendant disputes jurisdiction, by arguing that a court with jurisdiction should not proceed to exercise the jurisdiction which it has, is discussed later.

The rest of this document is only available to i-law.com online subscribers.

If you are already a subscriber, click login button.