England and Wales: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
If your contract is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of [[England and Wales]], proceedings must be served in [[England]] or [[Wales]] or their [[territorial waters]], but not [[Scotland]]. | If your contract is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of [[England and Wales]], proceedings must be served in [[England]] or [[Wales]] or their [[territorial waters]], but not [[Scotland]]. | ||
{{Netting between english entities}} | |||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[Process Agent]] | *[[Process Agent]] | ||
Revision as of 14:51, 15 January 2020
Not Scotland. Or Northern Ireland. Different, therefore, from Britain, the United Kingdom, the British Isles, England (individually), and Wales (individually).
Definitely not the European Union[1].
If your contract is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales, proceedings must be served in England or Wales or their territorial waters, but not Scotland.
Netting between legal entities established in England and Wales
In November 1993 — not long after the publication of the 1992 ISDA, the Financial Law Panel (these days the Financial Markets Law Committee) published a Statement of the Law relating to Netting which, more or less, confirmed that not only is netting permissible between English entities on an insolvency; it’s compulsory, whether or not you have an ISDA Master Agreement. Therefore one doesn’t need a netting opinion for domestic English swap agreement. Hurrah.