header-logo header-logo

09 January 2015 / Barry Fletcher
Issue: 7637 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Arbitration
printer mail-detail

Recasting the arbitration exception?

fletcher

Barry Fletcher examines the impact of the Brussels I (recast) on arbitration

A new era for the European jurisdiction regime began this month. The Brussels I (recast), also known by its less pithy, formal title, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 “on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast)”, partially entered into force on 10 January 2013 and became fully applicable on 10 January 2015.

The aims of the Brussels I (recast) are to provide unified rules on conflicts of jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters and to ensure the rapid recognition and enforcement of judgments given in member states (recital 4). While the Brussels I (recast) makes significant and welcome changes across the existing regime (which it replaces in full), this article focuses on particular aspects of the Regulation’s impact on arbitration.

The established exception

The Brussels I (recast) preserves the well-established arbitration “exception” to the otherwise wide-ranging effects of the Regulation (Art 1(2)(d)).

The exception exists principally because the cross-border recognition and enforcement of arbitral

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll