header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
09 January 2015 / Barry Fletcher
Issue: 7637 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Arbitration
printer mail-detail

Recasting the arbitration exception?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll