How to prepare for a multi-jurisdictional dispute

Guidelines for businesses and individuals

Key takeaways

• Use clear dispute-resolution clauses on governing law, forum and enforcement.
• Choose the right forum for the recovery of assets, not only for convenience.
• Secure a favourable court, before the other side does.
• Conduct early sanctions checks on parties, assets, banks and payment routes.

Why multi-jurisdictional disputes are risky

Cross‑border business brings opportunities and legal risks. When disputes arise across multiple jurisdictions, the challenges extend far beyond the merits of the claim. Matters concerning the governing law, enforcement, sanctions and asset recovery can quickly complicate even straightforward disagreements.

For companies operating internationally, the practical consideration goes well beyond “who is right?” and includes exploring where the dispute should be resolved, which law should apply, where the counterparty’s assets are located, whether sanctions issues may arise, and whether a judgment or award can be enforced.

For instance, a UK-based company contracting with a UAE counterparty on a German, Saudi or Singapore project may face uncertainty if there is no exclusive jurisdiction or arbitration clause. Since more than one court may have jurisdiction, this may cause disagreements over which court should be used to hear the case. These preliminary challenges can cause delays and additional costs before the merits of the dispute are even addressed. Further complexities may arise as different courts apply different limitation periods, remedies and standards for urgent relief.

To navigate these risks, businesses should adopt the following strategies.

1. Review dispute clauses early

Ensure every contract with the counterparty contains a consistent governing law clause and a clear exclusive jurisdiction or arbitration clause before any dispute arises. These clauses dictate where disputes will be heard, which law will apply, whether urgent relief will be available, and whether decisions can be enforced in the jurisdiction of the counterparty’s assets.

An arbitration clause may be preferable where the parties, projects and assets span multiple countries. Arbitral awards benefit from broad enforceability under the New York Convention 1958.

2. Choose the right forum when there isn’t an exclusive jurisdiction clause

In some cases, the business may not be bound by an exclusive jurisdiction or arbitration clause. Generally, English courts can take jurisdiction if the defendant is present in or has submitted to the jurisdiction and has been validly served. If not, the claim must fall within a recognised jurisdictional gateway for the business to be eligible to issue proceedings in that jurisdiction.

Jurisdictional gateways are a list of circumstances establishing a connection between the dispute and the jurisdiction which make it potentially appropriate for the case to be heard by the court in that jurisdiction.

Once a jurisdictional basis is established, the business should choose the forum strategically. You have selected the right forum if you can: serve proceedings effectively, obtain urgent relief, prove your case efficiently and enforce the judgment or award. There are two relevant scenarios, as below:

• English courts may be appropriate where the contracts are governed by English law, key documents or witnesses are in England, and/or an English judgment is likely to be enforceable at the place where the assets are located. If the counterparty has assets in a jurisdiction that is a contracting party to the Hague Convention of 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters, English court litigation may be particularly attractive as an English judgment may be easier to recognise and enforce in those jurisdictions (including the European Union).[1]
• Where the counterparty’s assets or bank accounts are concentrated in one country, consider litigating in that jurisdiction if there is a nexus between the action and jurisdiction. Alternatively, if you are only able to litigate in the English courts you should strategically manage your case to ensure you will have the best outcome for enforcement purposes. For example, front loading the workstreams to obtain a summary judgment instead of a default judgment in the event that the matter is undefended in the English Courts. You may come up against hurdles in a foreign jurisdiction in enforcing a default judgment as the case would not be decided on the merits. In contrast, a summary judgment is a merits-based assessment of the claim which would greatly assist with enforcement.

3. Avoid getting dragged into the wrong court

When more than one country has jurisdiction to hear a dispute in a counter-dispute situation, the first party to file often gets a tactical advantage. Whilst this does not necessarily mean that both courts will run parallel cases, it does, however, mean that you may have to spent time and money arguing over which court should stop and which should continue.

Counterparties may try to seize a favourable forum by filing first in foreign courts. To protect your position:

• Prepare evidence supporting your chosen forum (contract terms, where the work was done, where assets are located).
• Be ready to apply for a stay (pause) or dismissal of the other side’s case.
• Where appropriate, apply for anti-suit injunction (a court order stopping the other side from pursuing a foreign case).

Acting fast stops you from losing control if the opponent picks a less convenient court first.

4. Manage sanctions risk

Sanctions can block or delay payments if they involve: payments to a party that is (a) sanctioned, (b) owned or controlled by a sanctioned entity or individual, or (c) using a sanctioned bank as it may be blocked and/or require a licence. These payments can involve money transferred towards settlements, debts, legal or expert fees, or escrow amounts. In this eventuality, businesses must take the following two steps to protect themselves.[2]

First, conduct early screening: check all parties, beneficial owners, banks and intermediaries. Map payment routes and asset locations, and keep a compliance audit trail of all sanctions checks. A strong compliance system reduces the risk of civil penalties in the UK for sanctions breaches.

Second, determine whether a licence is required before making or receiving any payment, assess whether a sanctions licence is needed to transfer restricted funds.

Settlement agreements in cross-border disputes must include sanctions protections such as warranties, ownership and control confirmations, payment-route conditions, licence requirements, alternative payment methods and termination rights if sanctions block payment. These safeguards help ensure that settlements remain enforceable even in a shifting sanctions landscape.

Gherson insight

From our perspective, successful management of multi-jurisdictional disputes depends as much on strategic planning as it does on the underlying merits of a claim. Businesses often focus on whether they have a strong legal case, but the more important practical questions may be where proceedings should be commenced, how assets can be recovered, whether sanctions issues may arise, and where any judgment or award can ultimately be enforced.

Early consideration of dispute-resolution clauses, enforcement prospects and sanctions compliance can significantly reduce risk and place businesses in a stronger position should a dispute arise. In an increasingly interconnected commercial environment, a proactive cross-border strategy is often key to obtaining a favourable decision and successfully recovering the relevant value.

Frequently asked questions

What is a multi-jurisdictional dispute?

A multi-jurisdictional dispute arises when a legal disagreement involves parties, assets, contracts or activities connected to more than one country, prompting questions about the applicable law and where the dispute should be resolved.

Why are multi-jurisdictional disputes more complex than domestic disputes?

Cross-border disputes can involve competing courts, different legal systems, sanctions considerations, asset recovery issues and challenges related to enforcing judgments or awards in foreign jurisdictions.

Why is a dispute-resolution clause important in an international contract?

A clear dispute-resolution clause can determine the governing law, the forum for resolving disputes and how any judgment or award may be enforced, helping to reduce uncertainty and costs if a dispute arises.

When should a business consider arbitration instead of court proceedings?

Arbitration may be preferable where parties, projects and assets span multiple countries, as arbitral awards benefit from broad enforceability under the New York Convention 1958.

What risks arise if more than one court has jurisdiction over a dispute?

Parties may become involved in costly and time-consuming arguments over which court should hear the case. The first party to commence proceedings may gain a tactical advantage.

What is an anti-suit injunction?

An anti-suit injunction is a court order that prevents a party from pursuing proceedings in another jurisdiction where it is appropriate to do so.

How can sanctions affect a commercial dispute?

Sanctions can restrict or delay payments, settlements, legal fees, expert fees and other transfers of funds where sanctioned individuals, entities or financial institutions are involved.

What sanctions checks should businesses carry out before making payments?

Businesses should screen parties, beneficial owners, banks and intermediaries, assess payment routes and asset locations and maintain a clear compliance audit trail.

Why should settlement agreements include sanctions protections?

Sanctions-related provisions can help ensure that settlements remain enforceable by addressing ownership and control issues, payment routes, licensing requirements and alternative payment mechanisms.

How Gherson can assist

Gherson have advised multinational companies and high-net-worth individuals in multi-jurisdictional disputes, involving international enforcement, freezing relief, asset recovery and sanctions.

Recently, Gherson successfully represented Russian oligarch Mikhail Fridman, a sanctioned client in the Court of Appeal in Mikhail Fridman v Agrofirma Oniks LLC & Anor- [2026] EWCA Civ 139.

Additionally, Gherson recently secured a settlement in an ICC arbitration between a European company and a Turkish counterparty. The settlement agreement required payment from a third party to our client. We included a protective clause guaranteeing that the third-party payer was not subject to any sanctions, to ensure the payment would not be restricted by the applicable sanctions regulations.

Should you have further queries, please contact Roger Gherson or Emma Anderson.

The information in this blog is for general information purposes only and does not purport to be comprehensive or to provide legal advice. Whilst every effort is made to ensure the information and law is current as of the date of publication it should be stressed that, due to the passage of time, this does not necessarily reflect the present legal position. Gherson accepts no responsibility for loss which may arise from accessing or reliance on information contained in this blog. For formal advice on the current law please do not hesitate to contact Gherson. Legal advice is only provided pursuant to a written agreement, identified as such, and signed by the client and by or on behalf of Gherson.

©Gherson 2026

[1] https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table/?cid=137; https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2025-07-01/hlws758 ; https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2024/713/contents/made

[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sanctions-enforcement-cross-government-approach-march-2026/uk-governments-strategic-approach-to-sanctions-enforcement; https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/financial-sanctions-general-guidance/uk-financial-sanctions-general-guidance; https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/anti-money-laundering/sanctions-guide