Applicable law in non-contractual disputes

Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis

This Overview considers the applicable law regimes when determining the applicable law in a non-contractual dispute. Reference is made retained EU law. Since 1 January 2024, this has been known as ‘assimilated law’, in accordance with section 5  of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 (REUL(RR)A 2023). For guidance, see Practice Note: Assimilated law.

For guidance on other aspects of determining the applicable law, see:

  1. •

    Applicable law principles—overview

  2. •

    Determining applicable law in contractual disputes—overview

The applicable law is only one consideration when dealing with a cross border dispute. For an insight into the various considerations, see: Cross border considerations—checklist.

How applicable law is determined

The applicable law regime applied by the courts of England and Wales to determine the applicable law in non-contractual disputes will depend upon the date on which the harmful event complained of occurred and whether the proceedings fall within the relevant regime:

  1. •

    1 January 2020 onwards—Assimilated Regulation (EC) 864/2007 on the Law Applicable to Non-contractual Obligations, referenced as UK Rome II

  2. •

    11 January 2009 to 31 December

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Existing user? Sign-in TAKE A FREE TRIAL
Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Dispute Resolution News

CTJ announces applications for High Court Judicial Assistant Scheme 2025/2026

The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary (CTJ) has announced that applications for the Judicial Assistant Scheme for the High Court of England and Wales for 2025/2026 will open on 14 February 2025. The deadline for applications is at 6pm on 21 March 2025. The scheme offers placements lasting either two or four legal terms, targeting recently qualified barristers and solicitors in the early stages of their careers. Successful applicants will be assigned to judges across all three Divisions of the High Court, assisting with legal research, document summarisation, and general judicial support. Candidates must demonstrate effective decision-making, excellent communication skills, the ability to deliver at pace, and a high level of professional integrity.

Summary judgment on defamation defence of fair and accurate reporting (Iqbal v Geo)

TMT analysis: The Court of Appeal granted summary judgment in favour of the defendant, Geo TV Ltd (Geo), overturning the High Court decision. The court held that a defence against defamation under section 15 of the Defamation Act 1996 (DA 1996) (which relates to the publication of fair and accurate report of proceedings at a public meeting) was capable of summary determination. Written by Sarah Ellington, partner at Watson Farley & Williams LLP.

Shareholder representative claims under CPR 19.8 struck out on appeal (Wirral v Indivior)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal has upheld a decision to strike out a securities representative claim, holding that the court has an ‘unfettered discretion’ to decide when to permit representative claims under CPR 19.8. The judgment provides detailed guidance on the court’s approach to group claims, confirming there is no hierarchy for the different procedural approaches. Where alternative options are available, the court must assess the advantages and disadvantages of each. In particular, it must try to strike a fair balance between the progress of claimant and defendant issues, to avoid conferring an unfair procedural advantage on either party. The decision is also of interest for its analysis of the relevance of litigation funding. If the availability of funding is to be factored into an assessment of the merits of different procedural options, litigation funders must provide ‘cogent and coherent’ explanations of their funding decisions. Written by Harriet Campbell, senior knowledge lawyer at Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP.

Court construes contractual restrictions on assignment and considers champerty in refusing substitution of a claimant (Tactus Holdings Ltd (in liquidation) v Jordan)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Commercial Court dismissed an application to substitute a party for the existing claimant, holding that the purported assignment of rights was ineffective due to contractual restrictions and void for champerty. The court narrowly construed the assignment clause in the contract, finding Chillblast Ltd, the applicant, did not qualify as a permitted assignee. It also ruled Chillblast lacked a legitimate interest to justify the assignment. The judgment clarifies that the CPR 19.2(4) requirements for party substitution are disjunctive and applies a balance of probabilities test to meeting them. This case offers significant guidance on interpreting anti-assignment clauses, the modern application of champerty rules, and ‘change of party’ procedural requirements in commercial litigation. Written by the Dispute Resolution team at LexisNexis.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :  
News
Practice notes
Precedents
Q&As

Popular documents

Applicable law—common law (contract)

Applicable law—common law (contract)This Practice Note sets out when the common law of England and Wales applies to determine the applicable law in respect of contract claims. It sets out the process by which the courts of England and Wales will apply the common law to determine which law is

Forum non conveniens—principles

Forum non conveniens—principlesThis Practice Note considers the doctrine of forum non conveniens, also referred to as the appropriate forum or the proper place for a dispute to be determined. This doctrine is of relevance when determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction to

Cross-border enforcement—CJJA 1982 and submission to the foreign court's jurisdiction

Cross-border enforcement—CJJA 1982 and submission to the foreign court's jurisdictionThis Practice Note considers the position under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (CJJA 1982) where enforcement proceedings for a foreign judgment are brought in the courts of England and Wales and there

Enforcement of judgments under Brussels I (recast)

Enforcement of judgments under Brussels I (recast)This Practice Note provides guidance when seeking to enforce a judgment in the courts of England and Wales under the enforcement provisions in Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast).  Such enforcement can be sought after IP completion day (31
Applicable law—common law (contract)

Applicable law—common law (contract)

Applicable law—common law (contract)This Practice Note sets out when the common law of England and Wales applies to determine the applicable law in respect of contract claims. It sets out the process by which the courts of England and Wales will apply the common law to determine which law is

Forum non conveniens—principles

Forum non conveniens—principles

Forum non conveniens—principlesThis Practice Note considers the doctrine of forum non conveniens, also referred to as the appropriate forum or the proper place for a dispute to be determined. This doctrine is of relevance when determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction to

Cross-border enforcement—CJJA 1982 and submission to the foreign court's jurisdiction

Cross-border enforcement—CJJA 1982 and submission to the foreign court's jurisdiction

Cross-border enforcement—CJJA 1982 and submission to the foreign court's jurisdictionThis Practice Note considers the position under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (CJJA 1982) where enforcement proceedings for a foreign judgment are brought in the courts of England and Wales and there

Enforcement of judgments under Brussels I (recast)

Enforcement of judgments under Brussels I (recast)

Enforcement of judgments under Brussels I (recast)This Practice Note provides guidance when seeking to enforce a judgment in the courts of England and Wales under the enforcement provisions in Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast).  Such enforcement can be sought after IP completion day (31