Location

You are right Fiona, jurisdiction is a pain, and the EU regs quite often cause more probs than they resolve, leading to expensive hearings and lengthy arguments

However, in 99% of cases once jurisidiction is seized in one country by filing, a move elsewhere does not effect that, and anyone who willingly raises or enters into a jurisdiction argument based on a post filing change of location frankly has more money than sense - best to be avoided at all costs.

As far as your point goes about schedule 3, great summary, but as I understand the poster, the move was after the filing, which is the relevant date to demonstrate where jurisdiction lies, so in this instance doesnt assist this poster.

Amanda

Maybe I'm missing something but I thought “first come first served” applied where actions are raised in different states, rather than different territorial units. This appears to be the intention of the UK Parliament, which left in the 1973 Act the conflict provisions applicable within the UK, set out (so far as Scotland is concerned) in schedule 3. Just interested as a point of law.

Anyway in this case unless one of the parties was domiciled in Scotland it doesn't seem there is a conflict because parties were habitually resident in England.

PS Amanda, I hope you don't think I was contradicting you, I'd taken a long phone call while I was writing my first post and hadn't seen yours.

Thanx to you all, r, d, A, E & F. This has been a big step for me and I shed a tear of relief & gratitude when I read your response & tuned in to your banter.......good job! Big hugs