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 awards is governed by the Convention on the Recognition and

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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll