The First Episode
The English legal system lived quietly once upon a time before annoying people came to
disturb them. I have always believed that judges should be qualified and fit!
One secret you didn’t know about jurisdictions.
Since 2010, the English legal system controlled 80% of international commercial dispute
resolutions in their London jurisdictions. 1 The race amongst jurisdictions to be the forum of
choice for the resolution of legal disputes has accelerated, supposedly, by reason of the
decision of the United-Kingdom to quit the European Union (EU) (Brexit). Many European
countries regarded it as the time to advertise their own legal systems.
But hear what follows! The start was a flyer named ‘The Jurisdiction of Choice’ published by
the England and Wales Bar. 2 This leaflet marketed lawyers and English jurisdictions, singing
their praises: ‘more certainty than in civil law systems, principle of freedom of contract
established on English common law, and more flexible than civil law systems.’ 3
Stung to the quick, European lawyers and politicians replied asking: ‘Isn't there also freedom
of contract in Civil law?’, then to produce in their turn pamphlets; Germany with ‘Le Droit –
Made in Germany’ -nota bene- in German and English; France, with a bilingual brochure on
‘Continental law’, upon the subtitle ‘global, predictable, flexible, and profitable.’ 4
English has become the leading language in private international commercial law. Virtually
all transnational contracts are drafted in the English language. This can be explained by
several reasons: first the fact that practically all the laws are English or Anglo-American, then
because the parties insert in their contracts a clause determining an English-speaking country
as the place of arbitration for their disputes, or because the litigation is the extension of a
forum began in England or the United States. 5
Since the role of the English language in international commercial private matters was
predominant, some European countries inferred that by proposing procedures in the English
language, there would be no barriers for the foreigners to adopt their jurisdictions instead of
England or the United States jurisdictions, and so be able to divert litigations from these
locations. 6 The patois’ wall beaten, a happy conjuncture allowed for an equitable
championship, supported just by the quality of their civil justice systems and substantive
law! 7
But do the rare cases may be heard in English by continental courts justified all this fuss? In
addition, was the project feasible? Generally, the law requires that judges have the
nationality of the country. 8 How could a judge appreciate the pleadings of an English dialect
which is not an official language of his country, in other words, that he does not know?
A rational worry was lawyers, judges, and court officers’ English proficiency to conduct a
case in this language; a lack of mastery of the language could be the source of
misunderstandings or constraints in the arguments, affecting the final decision to the
detriments of the parties and of justice. 9
A first measure adopted by the states was to welcome documents in English, without official
translations. Commonly, jurisdictions of these countries accepted foreign papers on the
condition that they came along with official translations, but translations are costly and
laborious since private international law covers commercial or financial litigations, which
comprise hundreds or thousands of pages. 10
On the other hand, translation mistakes were very probable as translators were not
automatically intimate with the terminology, technical facets, and legal concepts. On these
grounds, parties should have had to review that the rewordings were factual. Indeed, each law
owns its proper terms and meaning, and the notions behind are sometimes not transcribable;
even a well-trained judge or lawyer could not be able to bring decoding them. 11
A second measure was the permission of written communication in English, from the parties
to the court, and between them. Nevertheless, expenses should be less than those ones of
documentary evidence, as the number granted is normally limited. 12
What does that mean? European jurisdictions and lawyers should have had the fear that their
performances were not meet the standards required, or to ridicule themselves and lose their
reputation. 13 The ‘Grand Project of the European Civil law jurisdictions’, consisting in
competing with the English jurisdictions by means of the introduction of the English
language in their courts, should have been thought, in all conscience, and the actions utilized
to be weighted, and not be undervalued.
So, some European countries therefore made up their minds, on the spur of the moment, that
handling private international business cases in their own courts was amongst their main
objectives! The French International Chamber Paris Court of Appeal (Chambre Commerciale
Internationale de la Cour d’Appel de Paris, CCIP-CA in French, or ICCP-CA in English) was
set up in March 2018. Other English-language jurisdictions emerged in the Netherlands,
Germany, Belgium, and Sweden.
Jurisdictions: All the basics you need to know
The Second episode
French Jurisdiction vs English Jurisdiction.
The French jurisdiction introduction was cool and fast, compared to its European fellows
which encountered deferments because of parliamentary discussions and political debates!
The French jurisdiction went further than its fellows in having the power to rule on English
common law. French jurisdictions rules, such as production of documents, discovery, cross-
examinations, the collection of evidence, hearings' organisation, etc, are inspired by the
common law.
The French Code of Civil Procedure does not bind judges to work with interpreters,
preconditioning that they have a good knowledge of the parties’ language. On another side,
the French Constitution, and their Ordinance of Villers-Cotterêts impose the French as tongue
for the pleas entered before French jurisdictions; all procedural documents must be redacted
in French, each submission in a foreign language must be accompanied by a French
translation, against evidence reports may be submitted in English without translation.
Experts, witnesses, and lawyers may use the English language, but at the court’s discretion,
and parties may, but at their own charges, have interpreters during oral proceedings held in
French. Judgements are delivered in French with an English translation; the fee being
included in the proceedings cost! After all, the idea was to attract international cases thanks to
the use of the English language!
Still, the French intensified the game with legal fees of € 100 to question the aggressive free
passage bill of the English Rolls Building (Business and Property Courts of England and
Wales). London’s commercial courts charged 5% of the value of a lawsuit, or up to £10,000. 14
In Paris, litigants pay a maximum of € 100 for the indictments they brought to their courts,
the rest being taken care of by the French State. All things considered; it is the French
taxpayers who pay!
It would have been cretinous to think that the advocates of the operation ‘rivalry with English
jurisdictions’, had other goals than the litigants’ satisfaction, the progress of the judiciary as
well as that one of their own jurisdictions, when private international affairs can be an
important source of revenue for a national budget. The United Kingdom’s (UK) legal sector
was worth £26bn to the economy! 15
By comparison, in the Netherlands and Swedish jurisdictions, the whole litigations process
and hearings are held in English vernacular, and judgments are supplied in English – except if
the dispute is addressed to the Dutch Supreme Court, where judgments are delivered in Dutch
only. 16
Jurisdictions: All the basics you need to know
The Third Episode
A few Harsh Realities about Jurisdictions.
What does that mean for consumers? It is as a contemporary rule that jurisdictions dealing
with international private law questions are in charge of administering justice, but also to
perform as service providers. This means that their roles as access providers should be at the
heart of the race between the jurisdictions, and as the result, the key element to being chosen
by the parties as a dispute resolution forum (constrained by the jurisdiction of the courts).
A 2015 study by the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL), 17
investigated how London has become a prominent and traditional jurisdiction for the high-
value cross-border litigations in the world. The motives encompassed the English lingua
franca' usage, defined as a widespread option of applicable law in international commercial
transactions by virtue of its quality, certainty, and efficiency in commercial disputes.
Complementary, the methods applied by the courts to read commercial contracts appeared to
be meticulously literal, contrasted to the French courts condemned for their interpretation of
contractual terms, procedural ineffectiveness, inefficient remedies, forum neutrality, and
especially the reputation and experience of English judges, understanding deeply complex
circumstances. 18
Claimants seize English jurisdictions for access to the law because they are assured of
certainty and fairness, and impartiality. Its membership in the EU approved the mutual
recognition of UK judgments amidst the Union, of this manner, companies were guaranteed
that their rights and interests were conserved under identical conditions before all other EU
member jurisdictions. 19
Three states have rebuilt their judicial systems with the same appetite as these European
jurisdictions. Dubai opened ‘the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC)’ in 2004, and in
2016 has concluded 217 disputes for a value monetary of more than $ 500 million; Doha
instituted ‘the Qatar International Court and Dispute Resolution Centre (QICDRC)’ in 2009
and released 38 judgments between 2009 and 2017; Singapore installed ‘the Singapore
International Commercial Court (SICC)’ in 2015 and heard 9 cases since its constitution. 20
Other places are famous for the resolution of litigation under common law: New York,
Dubai, and Singapore. 21 In summer 2018, a survey exposed nearly 35% of businesses went
for EU jurisdictions rather than UK jurisdictions only because of the ambiguities with
Brexit. 22
It should be mentioned that Paris has long been an important centre of international
arbitration. The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and its International Court of
Arbitration (ICA) are regularly chosen by multinational companies. In 2010, it was
inaugurated the International and European Chamber (CIE) but its existence stayed little-
known to foreign litigants. 23
In 2012 companies which had experienced French jurisdictions confessed not to have been
satisfied and not be in the mood to reiterate it. According to them, the role of experts would
be idiosyncratic in France, compared to other jurisdictions where experts are appointed by the
parties and represent an important part in the resolution of the dispute.
In French disputes, a court will almost never examine a scientific or other specialized
question based solely on the observations of the parties, and without the advice of a neutral
expert who will be appointed by the court to give its opinion on it. Still as reported by the
litigants, expertise would be as bad as the experts who direct them. This system pretends to
ensure that the experts are always well-informed in the terrain for which the courts appoint
them, as yet the truth is something else. 24
This concept behind this policy is legitimized by the necessity to handle a volume of disputes
beyond the capacity of the courts. Thus, foreign litigants become confused, habituated to
conscientious preparations of their litigations in common law jurisdictions, therefore judging
the French system silly, plus misses and irregular court dates, creating perplexity as to when
their claim will be managed. 25
Jurisdictions: All the basics you need to know
The Fourth Episode
Which is better: Qualified or Laymen Judges?
Recent judgments by French and English jurisdictions have reached contrary conclusions,
showing the major differences that can arise between different jurisdictions. The creation of
international commercial courts revived debates on a convergence between common law and
civil law systems for resolving international commercial disputes. 26 From me to you, I don't
think there is any union between the two!
Otherwise, the judges of the commercial jurisdictions in France are not professional judges,
but laymen former business leaders elected in the business community. Each one is
specialized in the area in which the chamber operates. 27 Although knowledge on companies
and markets promise an understanding of the issues at stake in a litigation, as well as its
general context, should not judges be drawn from the legal profession rather than the world
of business?
UK judges deciding Business and Property cases have been commercial lawyers in practice
in Business and Financial litigations for 30 years before becoming judges, some were
Queen’s Counsels (QC). 28 In the French commercial jurisdictions, judges are talented in
business, but not know-how in the law art.
The law governing the arbitration agreement.
Where there is no express choice of the law applicable to the arbitration agreement, there are
two main choices in terms of the source of the applicable law: the law of the seat, and the law
governing the contract. 29 Frequently, it will be the same e.g., Paris seat and French Law /
London seat and English Law, nonetheless, this is not always the case as in our case Kabab-Ji
S.A.L. (Lebanon) v Kout Food Group (Kuwait) we will go to criticize straight away. 30
English jurisdiction determined that in the absence of an express choice of law of the
arbitration agreement, the governing law was the law of the seat of arbitration rather than the
law of the underlying contract. Absolutely! The law lays down that it is the court exercising
jurisdiction which overrides the law to apply to the litigation involving foreign parties,
transactions, or sum of elements. The court always wishes to enforce its own law, the law of
the forum or, ‘the Lex Fori’, particularly the United States which espoused this mechanism. 31
Conversely, the French jurisdiction adopted another angle to interpret the parties’ discernible
common intentions. The basis of French jurisdiction reasoning was ‘the principle of
separability’ of an arbitration agreement, from the underlying contract. Judges were
convinced that: ‘the arbitration agreement validity should be considered according to public
international law, and independently of any national law governing the form or substance of
the parties contract agreement.’ 32
The English judges did not reckon with the principle of separability as their French confrères,
hence did not linger on it. Even so, they gave an explanation: ‘the aim of the principle was to
give legal effect to the parties presumed intention to ensure that their agreed procedure for
resolving disputes remains effective in circumstances that would render the substantive
contract ineffective, and not isolate the arbitration agreement from the substantive contract
for all purposes.’ 33
Above, we have an example of a difference of opinion between two jurisdictions arising from
the fact that one jurisdiction has guru judges and the other has amateur judges. To continue,
French judges who found that: ‘under French law, there was a substantive rule of
international arbitration law saying that the arbitration clause was legally independent from
the main contract in which it is contained, in accordance with the mandatory rules of French
law and international public order, without the need to refer to a domestic law.’ 34
I am afraid that public international law, also named the ‘law of nations’, is different from
private international law! Public international law englobes rules and customs governing
relations between states in spheres such as armed conflict, human rights, the sea, space,
territorial boundaries, diplomatic relations, and TRADE, but just between nations, not
between private individuals: it is not about the sale from France of a boat to Vladimir Putin
Russia (do you remember what happened?)! Public international law should not be mixed up
with private international law!
So, what on earth was public international law doing in the midst of this topic!? Here again
we have an example of the dangers that can arise if judges are not professional and not used
to working with the law! And the litigation still rocked all along by differences of opinion
resulting from errors in the application of laws.
Jurisdictions: All the basics you need to know
The Fifth Episode
Read What Experts Have to Say About the French Jurisdiction.
Since 2018, French jurisdiction accommodated 52 cases in scopes such as commercial
contracts, transport, unfair competition, and transactions on financial instruments. Parties
came from all over the world: an English bank, a Ukrainian state-owned limited company, a
Luxembourg company, an investment company from the Cayman Islands, Danish and Swiss
companies, and an American transport company in business. 35
In a context of ceaseless competition, the French international business courts could have
distinguished themselves from other jurisdictions by developing their own and original
expertise. Admittedly, the future of French international commercial jurisdictions could
depend on their ability to attract common law disputes, however jurisdictions such as New
York or Singapore are already privileged litigation centres for international litigants
confronted with common law disputes and could remain so. 36
French jurisdictions would have more to gain by attracting litigations related to the many
systems of civil law existing in the world, such as for example South America, Africa, Asia,
and Eastern Europe. Alternatively, French international business courts could benefit from
specialization in sectors such as banking, insurance, and others in which the court could
develop its own knowledge and distinct cases law. 37
Like France, several EU members states have set up international commercial jurisdictions.
In other words, a patchwork of different rules and practices between jurisdictions will
develop – even early started to come about- It will hurt, in the short term, businesses and,
above all, the Law world. 38
In September 2018, the European Parliament proposed the creation of a European
Commercial Court (CEC). The tribunal would function as an international forum. 39 I share the
Parliament's opinion that this jurisdiction would be better placed than any European
jurisdiction…
If European jurisdictions’ objective, when they overhauled their justice system, was,
basically, when push came to shove, to compete with the major dispute resolution
jurisdictions London and New York, without to forgot, and by contemplating the others
challengers like Singapore, Hong Kong or Abu Dhabi, then indeed, the European
Commercial Court might succeed this ambitious enterprise, as they would benefit of
commercial judges from all member states, with diverse legal and cultural backgrounds!
Finally, what are the advantages for consumers? There is no legal framework for litigation
funding in France and funding remains uncommon for litigation in the French jurisdictions,
nonetheless, from a financial perspective, France cannot be accused of false advertising:
litigations are cheap, and accordingly, yes! Gainful! At least for the candidates! It is
unquestionably a bargain! Notably if you measure the damage of a litigation before the local
courts of the different states, to bear or prevent an arbitral process!
What are the advantages for French jurisdictions? Indeed, by leaving the EU the United
Kingdom has no longer access to the EU regime for the mutual recognition of judgments
provided for under the so-called Recast Brussels Regulations 2012.’ 40 Obviously, France is
advantaged since this regulation, French’s judgments will be the sole authorized to enforce its
judgments all around the EEA.
Jurisdictions: All the basics you need to know.
The Sixth Episode
Predictions About the Future of English Jurisdiction.
With Brexit, we can no longer speak of London as the EU's hub jurisdiction. BUT London is
not yet defeated! European jurisdictions won a battle, not the war! I'll tell you more right
now! The Hague choice of Court Convention 2005 (the Hague Convention 2005) and the
Hague convention on the recognition of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters
2019 (together the Hague Conventions) can play an important role as they regulate the
enforcement of judgments between the UK and EU and the UK and other countries. 41
The Hague Convention 2005 accord a simple instrument for recognition and enforcement of
judgments, provided that the parties have agreed an exclusive jurisdiction clause. EU States,
the UK, Singapore, Mexico, Montenegro, have already ratified it; China, the USA, the
Republic of North Macedonia, and the Ukraine have signed the convention but not confirmed
yet. 42
The Hague Convention 2019 planned to supplement the Hague convention 2005, pertains
where no exclusive jurisdiction clause has been agreed between the parties. It currently has
three contracting: Ukraine and Uruguay, and the UK on its own rights since January 2021. A
widespread adoption of the Hague Conventions would be a game changer for the
enforcement of judgments in the international plan. 43
Applicable in more than 150 countries, the New-York Convention Arbitration of 1958
implemented a common aligned set of standards to recognition and enforcement of foreign
arbitral awards. It prevents national courts from reviewing the tribunal decision on the
merits. 44
The Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 (the FJA 1933) refers to
judgments from courts in Australia, Canada (except Quebec and Nunavut), India, Israel,
Pakistan, Guernsey, Jersey, and the Isle of Man. The FJA also applies to judgments from
some European countries: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and
Norway, to the extent that their subject matter is not covered by the European regime. 45
In another vein, international arbitration is the dispute settlement which offers the most
flexibility, and the possibility of adapting the procedure. The parties can shape any future
dispute when selecting arbitration in their underlying documentation by determining: the
applicable law, English law or a suitable one for their transaction; seat of proceedings;
language of the procedure, and whether or not the procedure should be kept confidential.
The UK may join the Lugano Convention 2007 which control jurisdictions and the
recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters within the EU and
with European Free Trade Association (EFTA) states (Iceland, Norway, and Lichtenstein);
but to enter, the UK needs the agreement of the EU and the non-EU countries mentioned
above. Hitherto, the UK has the agreement of Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland, it is still
awaiting the decision of all the countries of the Union. 46
The agreement is important for the mutual recognition of judgments from English courts. Still
in a spirit of positive and negative, for an honest competition and an excellent habitué
service, the EU has earlier announced to its member states that it had firm and clear-cut
arguments not to approve the UK request to cooperate with the Lugano convention on its own
rights, without giving further details though. There are rumours that this is because the UK's
acceptance would give it a clear financial advantage to the UK legal sector. 47
Let us take another example in the field of financial services! Article 46 of Markets in
Financial Instruments Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (MiFIR) requires that the settlement of
disputes, by litigation or arbitration take place in one of the EU members states. 48 As
underlined by the High Legal Committee for the Place Financière de Paris, (HCJP), there is
global … and European competition between jurisdictions. 49
English jurisdictions were well known for resolving disputes in the international financial
sector as well as nationally. The UK had a serious reputation in the sector thanks to expertise,
transparency, and certainty. The jurisdiction’s frequenting was even reinforced in 2015, when
the High Court of England instituted the ‘Financial List’: it offered litigants a dispute
resolution forum by judges with great expertise, without the need of live litigations for
receiving advice to their problems. 50
In short, no worries! Although the consent of the UK to the Lugano convention will avoid red
tape to agents to have their English judgments executed, they still will have the possibility to
be judged by English jurisdictions and see their judgments put into effect, thanks to a little bit
of paperwork! In the worst-case scenario, petitioners will be able to file a request for
recognition and enforcement of UK judgments in each EU member state where these
judgments are to be prescribed. God save administrative procedures!
To escape to complication of orders enforcement of dispute resolutions, individuals should
shape their potential litigations by including an exclusive jurisdiction clause!
1 Paul.B, Mihail.D, Katarina.T, Burcu.Y, ‘Cross Border Litigation in Europe’,
<https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Nto4DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=80%25+of+Commercial+C
ourt+cases+in+London+involve+at+least+one+foreign+party&source=bl&ots=4Yyir66i4h&sig=yGTRTLN9n
NtD3TTj1Zrikvx8z4Q&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=80%25%20of%20Commercial%20Court%2
0cases%20in%20London%20involve%20at%20least%20one%20foreign%20party&f=false>, accessed 2017,
p.6.
2 The Law Society, ‘England and Wales: Global legal centre’,
< https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/campaigns/england-and-wales-global-legal-centre> accessed 2019.
3 Christoph A. Kern, ‘English as a court language in continental courts’,
<https://repub.eur.nl/pub/51391/Volume05Issue03_Kern.pdf> accessed 2013, footnote 13.
4 ibid 3 para 3; 4 para 1.
5 ibid p.2 para 2.
6 ibid p.3.3 para 1.
7 ibid p.3.3 para 2.
8 ibid p.2 para 1-2; p.9.11.
9 ibid p.16 para 7.2.1.
10 ibid p.6 para 1.
11 ibid p.7 para 1.
12 ibid p.7 para 2-3.
13 ibid p.15. 7.1.1 para 2.
14 Michael Cross, ‘€100 maximum: Paris undercuts Rolls Building fees’,
<https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/100-maximum-paris-undercuts-rolls-building-fees/5066392.article>
accessed 7 June 2018, para 8.
15 Tom Moseley, ‘Why English courts are opening in the EU’, < https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-
42979920> accessed 28 February 2018, para 10.
16 Matthew Scully, ‘Competition for competition claims?’, < https://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/legal-
briefing/competition-forcompetition-claims/>, accessed Autumn 2019, The Netherlands para.5.
17 Alexandre Biard, ‘International Commercial Courts in France: Innovation without Revolution?’,
< http://www.erasmuslawreview.nl/tijdschrift/ELR/2019/1/ELR-D-18-00023>, accessed September 2019, 1.1-
15.
18 ibid 1.1-17.
19 ibid 1.1-16.18.
20 Shearman & Stearling, ‘The International Chambers of the Paris Courts and their innovative rules of
procedure’, <https://www.shearman.com/Perspectives/2018/04/Paris-Courts-and-Their-Innovative-Rules-of-
Procedure?sc_lang=en >, accessed 23 April 2018, A global trend, para 2.
21 Alexandre (n 17) 3.3-69.
22 ibid 1.1.23.
23 ibid 1.2-35.
24 ibid 1.2-27.
25 ibid 1.2-30.
26 ibid 2.1-38.
27 Paul Louis Netter, ‘Eyeing Crossborder Disputes’, < https://www.isda.org/a/5n9TE/IQ-Interview-with-Paul-
Louis-Netter-August2020.pdf>, accessed August 2020, p.2.IQ2.
28 The Commercial Court of England & Wales, ‘Current judges of the Commercial Court’,
<https://www.commercialcourt.london/>, accessed NA.
29 CMS Law Now, ‘More conflicting judgments from England and France: uncertainty for users of
international’,< https://www.cms-lawnow.com/ealerts/2020/07/more-conflicting-judgments-from-england-and-
france-uncertainty-for-users>, accessed 14 July 2017, This way, or that way?
30 Kabab-Ji S.A.L. (Lebanon) v Kout Food Group (Kuwait) [2020] EWCA.
31 Britannica, ‘Choice of Law’ < https://www.britannica.com/topic/conflict-of-laws/Choice-of-law#ref992191>.
32 CMS (n 29) This way, or that way? para 3.
33 ibid para 4.
34 ibid para 3.
35 Lucie Mongin-Archambeaud, ‘International Commercial Courts of Paris: where are we?’, <
https://www.osborneclarke.com/insights/international-commercial-courts-paris/> accessed 24 February 2020,
para 3.
Alexandre (n 17) para 1.4.
36 ibid 3.1 para 2.62.
37 ibid.
38 ibid 3.3 para 1.
39 ibid.
40 Oliver Browne, Tom Watret, ‘Enforcement of foreign judgments 2021’,
< https://www.lw.com/thoughtLeadership/enforcement-of-foreign-judgments-2021>, accessed August 2020,
Recast Brussels Regulation 2012.
41 ibid p.4 para 5.
42 ibid p.4 para 9.
43 ibid.
44 The New York Arbitration Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, New
York, < https://www.newyorkconvention.org/in+brief>, 10 June 1958, ‘In Brief’, accessed NA.
45 ibid, other statutory regimes.
46 ibid p.13.29.
47 Kate Beioley, Jim Brunsden, ‘UK in limbo over European legal co-operation agreement’,
<https://www.ft.com/content/ccdbdd62-0244-47f7-b82a-86eccc38f8ed>, accessed 11 January 2021, para 7.
48 Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories,
< https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32012R0648>, accessed 27 July 2012, art 46.
49 Alexandre (n 17) para 2.8.
50 Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, ‘Financial List’; <https://www.judiciary.uk/you-and-the-judiciary/going-to-
court/high-court/courts-of-the-chancery-division/financial-list/history/>, accessed 2021.