| Summary: | This article considers the rules applied by the English courts to determine questions of jurisdiction in cross-border cases. It suggests that those rules have developed, over the past 50 years, to a point where they are both over-engineered and out of line with the principles that should govern the design and construction of a set of rules of this kind. The authors suggest a new framework, working (so far as possible) with the existing legal material while seeking to shape it into a logical and workable structure. In particular, they propose (1) separating questions pertaining to the existence of jurisdiction, from questions pertaining to its exercise; (2) isolating questions of jurisdiction from questions relating to the strength or weakness of the claimants case; (3) emphasising the procedural function of service of process by removing the existing, burdensome requirement to obtain the court’s permission before serving a claim form abroad; and (4) streamlining the procedures for challenging jurisdiction with a view to removing cost and delay in the system.
|
|---|