This recognition by Chambers and Partners in their General Business Law rankings reaffirms our longstanding market leadership and depth of expertise across key practice areas, including Corporate/Commercial, Financial Services, Dispute Resolution, Gaming, and Shipping.

ISOLAS also counts on a number of highly ranked leading individuals in all sectors, and this year, one notable individual achievement is that of The Hon Neil Costa who has risen in short time to Band 2 in Dispute Resolution, reflecting his growing influence, client confidence, and consistent delivery on high‑value, complex matters.

Of the Firm, Chambers Review states “ISOLAS enjoys a longstanding reputation as one of the top full-service law firms in the Gibraltar market. It covers a wide remit of legal areas, ranging from finance and corporate transactions to licensing and insurance matters. Its lawyers frequently advise clients from both the public and private sectors. The firm possesses expertise in large real estate development projects and regularly advises on financial regulatory issues, including those related to cryptocurrencies, as well as on gaming matters. Additionally, ISOLAS operates a successful disputes practice, covering various litigation matters with a strong focus on employment and property disputes. The firm further assists with shipping mandates, such as ship arrests.”

Senior Partner The Hon Albert Isola CBE said “We are incredibly proud of our Team who, year after year, maintain our Band 1 ranking. Their commitment to our clients is exemplary and I am delighted by this recognition. Congratulations to all.”

ISOLAS Partners Adrian Pilcher, Emma Lejeune and Stuart Dalmedo have once again contributed to the Private Client Guide for Gibraltar, published by the International Comparative Legal Guides (ICLG).

The guide brings together expert commentary from legal practitioners across 24 jurisdictions, addressing key private client issues including taxation, succession planning and immigration.

The Gibraltar chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the jurisdiction’s private client framework, covering pre-entry tax planning, connection factors, taxation of inward investment, succession planning, trusts and foundations, immigration matters and tax treaties.

Gibraltar continues to offer an attractive tax environment, with no inheritance, capital gains, estate, gift or wealth taxes. For those relocating to Gibraltar, specialist regimes such as Category 2 and HEPSS status offer capped tax exposure and a clear, predictable tax outcome.

The guide also provides clarity on taxable sources of income and the treatment of inward investment, reinforcing Gibraltar’s reputation as a transparent, efficient and well-regulated international finance centre.

Read the Gibraltar chapter: Private Client Laws and Regulations Report 2026 Gibraltar

ISOLAS LLP has achieved a significant judgment on behalf of its client, Mansion (Gibraltar) Limited and Onisac Limited in the ongoing proceedings against Mansion’s former CEO Karel Christian Manasco. On Wednesday 21 January 2026, the Supreme Court of Gibraltar awarded Mansion Gibraltar damages in the sum of £1.7 million in respect of various claims after having struck out Mr Manasco’s Defence and Counterclaim. This builds on the €2.3 million already awarded to Mansion Gibraltar by the Supreme Court in September 2024.

To date Mr Manasco has been ordered to repay Mansion Gibraltar over £3.5 million as well as over £500,000 in costs.

Mansion (Gibraltar) Limited and Onisac Limited have throughout the proceedings been represented by Partner James Montado and Senior Associate James Castle. James Castle appeared as Counsel with Associate Anna Hernandez at the Summary Judgment and Strike out application.

ISOLAS are delighted to welcome Anna Hernandez to their team as an Associate.

Anna began her training with ISOLAS in September 2024, completing seats in Litigation, Commercial Law and Private Client. After completing her training, she was admitted as a Barrister of the Supreme Court of Gibraltar. She has become an important and valued member of the team in the short time she has been with the firm.

She graduated from Leeds Beckett University with First Class Honours in 2022 and completed the Bar Practice Course at The University of Law in 2023 and later completed the Gibraltar Professional Skills Course and the Professional Certificate of Competence in Gibraltar Law at the University of Gibraltar.

Anna works alongside Partner Christian Hernandez in commercial law with a focus on corporate finance, and with Partner James Montado in the litigation team.

Senior Partner The Hon Albert Isola CBE said: “Anna has sailed through her studies and training and is showing enormous potential. She has consistently demonstrated a level of commitment and determination that is important to a career in this profession. We are delighted to have her join our team and look forward to supporting her progression through the firm.”

Anna added: “I am excited to begin my legal career at ISOLAS LLP. The firm has always provided valuable guidance and support throughout my training, and I am grateful for the opportunities I have received. I look forward to continuing my work at the firm and contributing to the team.”

ISOLAS LLP Partner, the Hon. Neil Costa, defended Mr Ahmed Farissi against a charge of strangulation in a 5-day criminal trial in the Supreme Court of Gibraltar between 5 and 9 January 2026.

Neil was assisted by Associate Danielle Erica Curtis BL, Trainee Barrister Solomon Kench and Paralegal Michael Opala, throughout proceedings. What initially appeared to be a case of one person’s word against another turned into a multi-layered criminal trial following the Crown’s introduction of additional contextual evidence. In cross-examination, Neil was able to expose several evidential inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence. Most notably, at one point during his cross-examination of the complainant, Neil was able to elicit a response on an important issue in which the complainant admitted to giving evidence under oath that may have been false. This adroit ability to cross-examine the witness was likely crucial in the case. It is said that the cross-examination ‘likely’ proved crucial as jury deliberations are secret. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty.

ISOLAS LLP Partner, the Hon. Neil F Costa, acted for the Royal Gibraltar Police (the ‘RGP’), as one of the interested persons, in the Coroner’s Inquest into the deaths at sea of Mohamed Abdeslam Ahmed and Mustafa Dris Mohamed, which took place between Monday 1 and Friday 19 December 2025 (the ‘Inquest’). The Inquest was concerned with establishing the facts surrounding the deaths of the two men following a collision at sea with an RGP interceptor vessel. HM Deputy Coroner (the ‘Coroner’) empanelled a jury to hear the evidence and arrive at a verdict.

The four principal statutory questions the Inquest examined were: who the deceased were and how, when, and where the deceased came by their deaths. The Coroner ruled that the Inquest would additionally consider the broader circumstances as to how the deceased came by their deaths. An inquest that examines the wider circumstances of a person’s death when state actors are involved is described as an Article 2 inquest referring to the protection of the right to life enshrined in article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights. At the start of proceedings, the Coroner directed the Inquest jury to consider: (a) the adequacy of the RGP’s training of its maritime officers; (b) the adequacy of the RGP’s standard operating instructions to its Marine Section; (c) the conduct of the former RGP officers during the pursuit; and (d) the conduct of the said officers following the collision at sea.

Neil represented the RGP as senior Counsel throughout the Inquest, assisted by ISOLAS LLP Associate, Ms Louise Anne Turnock, which heard evidence and legal submissions for almost three weeks. Neil extensively and meticulously examined different witnesses, thoroughly testing the evidence in light of the principal statutory, and broader, questions that the jury had been tasked to assess. Given the evidence, Neil successfully advanced, in legal submissions, that the two expressly articulated questions relating to the RGP should be removed from the list of issues that the Inquest jury should answer. Neil submitted that the preponderance of evidence meant that there could be no doubt that the RGP’s training and standard operating instructions to its maritime officers was adequate.

Upon applications brought by both Counsel for the former RGP officers involved in the fatal collision at sea, and supported in submissions by Neil, the Coroner decided to remove the verdict of unlawful killing from the jury; again, based on the evidence heard in Court. Following the removal of the unlawful killing conclusion, the jury were directed to enter verdicts of accidental deaths, which the jury entered along with a narrative as to the broader circumstances leading to the fatalities as well as a separate rider of recommendations. Inter alia, the jury found that the former RGP officer piloting the RGP vessel had acted in accordance with the RGP’s training and was not at fault for the collision itself. Other than on the discrete questions on the use of navigational equipment on vessels and refresher coxswain training taking place every few years (as opposed to the presently mandated 5 years), the jury did not make any other recommendations as to the training of the RGP maritime officers nor as to the RGP standard operating procedures to its Marine Section.

Subject to a judicial review by the families of the deceased, the verdict of this Inquest should mark the end of a long and complex set of proceedings that have spanned over five years and in respect of which Neil has represented the RGP throughout.

ISOLAS is delighted that it has once again been ranked “Band 1” in the Chambers FinTech 2026 guide, reaffirming the firm’s position as one of Gibraltar’s leading advisers in digital assets, regulatory matters and financial innovation. ISOLAS has been at the forefront of Gibraltar’s development in this area and continues to excel in the provision of these services.

Head of Financial Services Jonathan Garcia, Partner continues to be ranked as a Band 1 practitioner in FinTech Legal. Chambers notes:

“Jonathan Garcia has an excellent reputation for his work on blockchain and cryptocurrency matters… experienced in advising a wide range of clients on regulatory and licensing issues.”

Chambers once again commends ISOLAS for its depth of expertise and close involvement in the development of Gibraltar’s DLT regulatory framework:

“ISOLAS is highly regarded for its expertise in blockchain regulatory matters… often advises international clients looking to obtain a Gibraltar DLT licence.”

The Hon Albert Isola CBE, Senior Partner said “ISOLAS’ continued Band 1 ranking reflects our team’s commitment to excellence and to supporting Gibraltar’s position as a globally recognised, well-regulated and innovative digital finance jurisdiction. We are proud to advise clients who are shaping the future of this sector, and we remain dedicated to guiding them through an evolving regulatory landscape. Jonathan Garcia is a real star in this sector, and I’m delighted by his continued recognition.”

Chambers and Partners

In the context of employment law, one of the biggest risks to employers is the, often overlooked, two-pronged nature of unfair dismissal; a need for a valid reason for dismissal and procedural fairness. The requirement to ensure fair process ensures employees are given advance notice of performance or conduct issues and opportunity and support to either turn things around, where possible, or defend themselves. To avoid the risks of failing to meet these standards, employers need to plan and implement disciplinary procedures, which include an opportunity for the employee to hear the case, respond to it and present their side. This usually takes place in the context of a formal disciplinary hearing.

The use of a script at a disciplinary hearing therefore requires care and consideration; they may help ensure consistency and prevent accidental oversight or omission of any relevant matter in the moment, but misuse could also lead to a lack of authenticity, stilted or unnatural dialogue that prevents real communication and, in the worst case scenario, either pre-judgement or the appearance of the same. These could all lead to challenges to the fairness of the disciplinary process as a whole.

The Rationale behind Scripts

Scripts in any meeting have some fairly obvious advantages, particularly where it comes to maintaining organisation, structure and consistency.

Consistency in treatment ensures fairness between all employees, holding them to the same standard, as well as ensuring managers hearing a case are themselves clear in their instruction and responsibilities. This ensures the process is smoother, and clear expectations for all parties in advance is useful considering that the situation will often be new, and by nature uncomfortable, for those involved. The structure provided by a script can be useful in reducing combative feelings that may emerge when an employee feels personally attacked by allegations, and a manager can feel justified by having agreed points of discussion to cover.

Prompts can help ensure that the manager conducting the hearing remembers to raise all issues and evidence relevant to the disciplinary matter in question. This is critical when a failure to take something important into consideration in their decision could challenge the fairness of the process. Lord Denning, in a case brought to the Court of Appeal in the UK (Abernathy v Mott, Hay and Anderson), noted that ‘[an] employer can only rely on the reason in fact for which he dismissed the man, if the facts are sufficiently made known to the man’, and Lord Cairns’ agreed that ‘it could constitute a breach of procedural fairness [to not give] the worker the accurate charge’. A script for a hearing can ensure there is clear evidence both that all reasons behind the disciplinary have been put to the employee for their fair response and that the employer has clear evidence that the response has been considered if challenged later. A plan will also help ensure that key procedural and compliance steps are followed, such as confirming the employee is aware of their right to be accompanied. Though seemingly small, these matters and records can prove to be crucial evidence that the employer has been fair, unbiased and met established reasonable standards.

The Drawbacks of Scripts

However, an employer should be cautious of the risks of a script leading to, whether actual or perceived, lack of impartiality. If too strictly followed, employees may feel the process is predetermined and that can lead to a case that is flawed in its very nature, and open to later legal challenge. Employers need to keep in mind that the purpose of a disciplinary hearing, as mentioned, is to give the employee a fair hearing and opportunity to defend themselves against any allegations in front of an unbiased decision-maker. If a script is so rigid as to limit or prevent full and fair consideration of evidence and arguments, there is a risk that any subsequent dismissal could be rendered unfair on the procedural ground. Employers should note that the Employment Act, governing unfair dismissal in Gibraltar, explicitly puts the onus on them to show that they acted ‘reasonably in treating [the reason for dismissal] as sufficient reason for dismissing the employee’ – the disciplinary hearing is also the employer’s opportunity to demonstrate that they have sufficiently investigated the matter.
Quite apart from these legal implications of improper use of a script in a disciplinary hearing, there is also the effect that such inflexibility will have on the individuals in the room. Employees may feel frustrated by a lack of perceived empathy and due attention to the specifics of their case, which can in turn lead to a breakdown in trust and morale with management and their employer. For the managers involved too, this can limit their ability to respond dynamically to new information or adapt their communication-style to different circumstances, as may be helpful. The purpose of a disciplinary hearing, it is worth remembering, is not just a procedural exercise to mitigate legal risks, but an important opportunity to attempt to improve a situation, for both the employee and employer.

Finding the Balance

The key when using a script in a disciplinary hearing, then, is to find the balance between management going in blind and insufficiently prepared and following a uniform plan so mechanically as to be too rigid and potentially giving the perception of unfairness. It is advisable to use a script to create a structure for the hearing, ensuring all relevant points known in advance are raised and procedural matters are covered, to better enhance consistency, compliance and fairness to the employee. However, it should be stressed that a script should not be used to limit full explanation, clarification or investigation of further points that may arise and be relevant, not least for potential future legal defensibility. Open-ended questions are advisable, as well as active listening and further pursuit of any lines of interest before return to the general plan, rather than pre-defined back-and-forth closed questioning. Employers should view scripts as a supportive tool to help them ensure consistent treatment and full consideration of disciplinary matters prior to judgement and not as a tick-boxing exercise prior to a predetermined outcome.

Changes to the rules of cross-border law between Gibraltar and the UK and Gibraltar and Europe: looking forward

In the previous article of this two-part series (available here), we explored the key changes to Gibraltarian law on jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments brought in by the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment) Act 2025.

In this article we look forwards, examining how these changes are being implemented for legal cases which are already in progress. This article will also set out the future changes which are coming in this area, like the implementation of the 2019 Hague Convention in Gibraltarian law under the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments (2019 Hague Convention etc.) Regulations 2025.

The impact on cases already in progress

Some cases with international elements will already be in progress, with arguments soon to be made about whether the courts of Gibraltar should have jurisdiction or whether a judgment should be recognised or enforced. For such cases, there are provisions in the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment) Act 2025 which mean that the old procedures for determining jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement as contained in the Lugano Convention, the Brussels Conventions and the Brussels Recast Regulation may continue to apply in Gibraltarian law.

In legal cases which were begun in a Gibraltarian court before 1 January 2021, the question of whether the Gibraltarian court or the courts of an EU or EFTA country or the UK should have jurisdiction to determine that claim will be decided in line with the Brussels Conventions, the Lugano Convention and the Brussels Recast Regulation, so long as these procedures would have applied before 1 January 2021.

Similarly, if a person obtained a judgment following a legal case that was started in the court of an EU or EFTA country or the UK before 1 January 2021, the question of whether that judgment can be recognised or enforced in Gibraltar will be decided in line with the Brussels Conventions, the Lugano Convention and the Brussels Recast Regulation so long as these procedures would have applied before 1 January 2021.

It is notable that the cut-off for the application of the Brussels Conventions is not 7 November 2025 (the date of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment) Act 2025) but is earlier: 31 December 2020. Therefore, it might not be possible for a person who has obtained a judgment in a case that started in July 2023, while the Brussels Conventions were treated as being in effect in Gibraltarian law, to now rely on the Brussels Conventions to enforce the judgment in Gibraltar. Instead, that person would need to attempt to enforce the judgment under currently applicable procedures such as the 2005 Hague Convention or the common law procedure or (if they are applicable) the Brussels Recast Regulation or the Lugano Convention. Similarly, if a case were started in July 2023 in Gibraltar and there was a question as to jurisdiction which has not yet been decided, this might not be able to be determined under the Brussels Conventions.

The continued application of the Lugano Convention and the Brussels Recast Regulation for in-progress cases is slightly different. Apart from applying in respect of cases arising or judgments given before 1 January 2021, the processes set out in the Brussels Recast Regulation and the Lugano Convention also continue to apply for determining jurisdiction in legal cases begun in a Gibraltarian court before 7 November 2025, or recognition or enforcement of a judgment given by a court in an EU or EFTA country or the UK after 31 December 2020 but before 7 November 2025.

The correct procedure to follow for determining jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in cases that are already ongoing is thus something of a patchwork.

The 2019 Hague Convention

The Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment) Act 2025 also creates a power for the Minister for Justice to make regulations to implement into Gibraltarian law any international agreement which relates to private international law. This power has already been used, in the form of the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments (2019 Hague Convention etc.) Regulations 2025 which were published on 13 November 2025. These Regulations will implement into Gibraltarian law the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters concluded on 2nd July 2019 at The Hague (known as the 2019 Hague Convention). It is notable, however, that the implementation of the 2019 Hague Convention into Gibraltarian law has not yet happened, as the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments (2019 Hague Convention etc.) Regulations 2025 will not take effect until a further notice is published in this respect in the Gibraltar Gazette.

The 2019 Hague Convention relates to the recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial foreign judgments and, when implemented, it will allow more types of foreign judgments to be recognised and enforced in Gibraltar. To date, the contracting states are the UK, the EU (except Denmark), Ukraine, Montenegro, Uruguay, Andorra, and Albania. However, it is notable that unlike the Brussels Conventions, the Lugano Convention, the Brussels Recast Regulation or the 2005 Hague Convention, the 2019 Hague Convention does not apply to jurisdiction, only recognition and enforcement of judgments. Even in respect of recognition and enforcement of judgments, various matters are excluded from the scope of the 2019 Hague Convention, such as, among others, judgments on family law matters, insolvency, defamation and intellectual property.

Circumstances where the 2019 Hague Convention will apply include (among others): where the person against whom recognition or enforcement is sought was habitually resident or had their place of business in the country where judgment was given; where the person against whom recognition or enforcement is sought brought the claim in question or otherwise submitted to the jurisdiction of the country where judgment was given; where the judgment relates to obligations arising out of land situated in the country where the judgment was given; or where there is a contract, and the judgment is from a court in the country where performance of the contractual obligations happened (apart from in certain circumstances).

There is one other notable ground for recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment under the 2019 Hague Convention which may plug a gap in the sort of judgments that can be recognised and enforced in Gibraltar under the 2005 Hague Convention (which already applies in Gibraltarian law). Under the 2005 Hague Convention, judgments can only be recognised and enforced from a country chosen by the parties under an exclusive choice of court agreement. Under an exclusive choice of court agreement, both parties agree that one specific court (and no others) will determine any dispute that arises between them, no matter which party starts the dispute. However, it might not be possible to recognise and enforce a judgment under the 2005 Hague Convention when that judgment has been obtained from a court in a country chosen by the parties through an asymmetric jurisdiction clause- e.g. Party A can sue Party B in any country, but Party B can only sue Party A in Gibraltar.

The 2019 Hague Convention, however, when implemented, will include a ground for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment from a court in a country which the parties to the judgment had chosen (so long as the parties’ choice of court is not an exclusive choice of court agreement). This may therefore allow judgments obtained under asymmetric jurisdiction clauses to be enforced in Gibraltar, as for this ground of the 2019 Hague Convention to apply the parties need not agree that all proceedings be brought in the same court in the same country. This may give parties more flexibility in agreeing which country disputes between them should be brought in, while still allowing any judgment obtained under their agreement to be recognised and enforced in Gibraltar.

Even when the 2019 Hague Convention is implemented into Gibraltarian law, however, there will be exclusions as to its effect. In particular, it will not be possible to recognise and enforce certain judgments in relation to rights to land under the 2019 Hague Convention and certain judgments will not be able to be recognised or enforced against consumers.

Changes to appeals in respect of the 2005 Hague Convention

Apart from giving effect to the 2019 Hague Convention in Gibraltar law, when the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments (2019 Hague Convention etc.) Regulations 2025 come into effect they will also alter the procedures for recognising and enforcing judgments in Gibraltar under the 2005 Hague Convention.

In particular, these new regulations will alter the appeals procedure for a decision of the Supreme Court to register a judgment so that it can be recognised and/or enforced in Gibraltarian law under the 2005 Hague Convention. Rather than appeals being made to the Court of Appeal, as they are now, they would instead return to the Supreme Court.

These new regulations will also introduce a new test setting out when the Supreme Court must overturn a decision to not register a judgment under the 2005 Hague Convention. Previously, the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1993 was silent as to how the Supreme Court should decide an appeal against such refusals to register judgments.

Where next?

The Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment) Act 2025 is just the latest example of Gibraltar making amendments to EU-derived law and other law connected with the EU. In this case, these amendments were due to the decision by EU and EFTA countries to not reciprocate in applying the rules in the Lugano Convention, the Brussels Conventions and the Brussels Recast Regulation to Gibraltar in the same way that Gibraltar was applying them to EU and EFTA countries. This is, however, very unlikely to be the end of the road for divergence between Gibraltarian law and EU law.

However, this may also not be the end of the Minister for Justice’s use of his power in the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment) Act 2025 to implement international agreements into Gibraltarian law. Gibraltar is, after all, included in the UK’s application to rejoin the Lugano Convention in its own right- though this application has been blocked for now. This may therefore be an interesting space to watch, particularly in the context of the new relationship being forged between Gibraltar and the EU in the post-Brexit treaty on Gibraltar and the EU, with a potential for future convergence instead of divergence from EU law.

As Gibraltar’s relationship with the EU continues to evolve, reliable advice on the law is more important than ever. ISOLAS LLP, your trusted advisor since 1892, can help you cut through the noise and confusion of the post-Brexit landscape to give you confidence and clarity in your cross-border transactions or disputes. Get in touch here.

Changes to the rules of cross-border law between Gibraltar and the UK and Gibraltar and Europe

In our increasingly interconnected world, cross-border law becomes more important every day. Gibraltarian companies are doing business on the international stage, with customers and partners from across Europe and beyond. As the law of each country and territory differs, it is vital to understand how these systems of law from different countries and territories interact. If a company based in France has a dispute arising from a contract it has with a Gibraltarian company, that company needs to know which country it can bring its claim in. This is then decided by the law on jurisdiction. If the French company then obtains a judgment from a French court against the Gibraltarian company, the key question then becomes how to make sure the Gibraltarian company complies with the French judgment. If all the assets of the Gibraltarian company are in Gibraltar, a French court may not have any control over them. That is where the law on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments comes in.

The Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment) Act 2025 came into effect on 7 November 2025. There are two key changes made by this new Act. Firstly, the processes have changed for the recognition and enforcement of foreign European and UK judgments in Gibraltar. Secondly, there have been changes to the rules for determining whether, in cross-border cases spanning Gibraltar and another European country or Gibraltar and the UK, a Gibraltarian court has jurisdiction to deal with the case. These changes mean that it may be harder, or in some cases no longer possible for foreign European judgments to be enforced in Gibraltar, and that Gibraltarian courts may have more jurisdiction to rule on cases which might otherwise have fallen within the jurisdiction of another European country.

This article is the first of a two-part series. This article will highlight what has changed in the rules on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement under Gibraltarian law, and the second part will drill down into the impact of these changes on cases which are already in progress, together with looking ahead to future changes in the law in this area.

Gibraltarian law in this area was largely dominated by EU law. As Gibraltar was a member of the EU by virtue of the UK’s membership, Gibraltar left the EU at the same time as the UK, on 31 January 2020. Following a transitional period, most of EU law which applied in Gibraltar on 31 December 2020 was incorporated into Gibraltarian law. Following Brexit, therefore, Gibraltar is now free to amend or repeal EU-derived law, such as the law on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Gibraltar.

Recognition or enforcement?

Recognition and enforcement of a judgment are slightly different, though related concepts.

Recognition involves a Gibraltarian court treating the issues decided by a foreign court as having been conclusively determined between the parties to a legal case for the purposes of Gibraltarian law. A person may use recognition of a foreign judgment to resist a claim brought in Gibraltar, for example on the grounds that the claim being brought against them has already been decided by a foreign court.

Enforcement, on the other hand, is the process by which a person ensures that a judgment that they have obtained by a foreign court is carried out in Gibraltar. Importantly, a judgment can only be enforced in Gibraltar if it has first been recognised under Gibraltarian law.

The Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment) Act 2025

The law on jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Gibraltar is multi-faceted, with many different regimes having arisen over the years. The Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1993 only relates to some of the methods for determining jurisdiction and recognising and enforcing foreign judgments in Gibraltar, though it is nevertheless a key piece of legislation in this area. This key piece of legislation has now seen sweeping changes with the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment) Act 2025.

In brief, the Lugano Convention, the Brussels Conventions and Regulation 1215/2012 (known as the Brussels Recast Regulation) no longer have effect in Gibraltarian law. In parallel, however, procedures very similar to those of the 1968 Brussels Convention have been enacted to regulate the jurisdiction of civil claims between Gibraltar and the UK and allow for the continued recognition and enforcement of UK judgments in Gibraltar.

The Lugano Convention was relevant in Gibraltar for determining jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters between Gibraltar and Norway, Iceland and Switzerland. The Lugano Convention also provided for the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters from Norway, Iceland and Switzerland in Gibraltar. It is noted that Norway, Iceland and Switzerland, together with Liechtenstein, form the European Free Trade Association, or EFTA.

The Brussels Conventions (the first of which dates from 1968), as subsequently amended, laid down rules about determining jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters between Gibraltar and EU member states (including the UK). The Brussels Conventions also allowed for judgments from any EU member state to be recognised and enforced in Gibraltar. While Gibraltar was within the EU, the Brussels Conventions were almost entirely replaced by the Brussels Recast Regulation.

These rules for determining jurisdiction and regimes for recognition and enforcement of judgments from EU and certain EFTA countries have now, however, been swept away by the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment) Act 2025.

Not all change

The 2005 Hague Convention continues to have effect in Gibraltarian law under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1993. This Convention provides for determining jurisdiction between certain countries (including all EU member states) and Gibraltar, and the recognition and enforcement of judgments from certain countries (including all EU member states) in civil and commercial matters where there is an agreement between the parties involved for any disputes to be decided only by the courts of a jurisdiction which is a party to the 2005 Hague Convention. The 2005 Hague Convention is therefore only relevant in cases about a contract between parties in which the parties have agreed which country claims in respect of the contract have to be brought in. The provisions relating to the 2005 Hague Convention in the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1993 remain unaltered by the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment) Act 2025.

Similarly, the 2007 Hague Convention, which relates to certain family law matters with a cross-border element, continues to have effect in Gibraltarian law. The provisions in the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1993 in respect to this Convention also remain unchanged by the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment) Act 2025.

New procedures for determining jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement

Recognition and enforcement of judgments from an EU member state, Norway, Iceland or Switzerland in Gibraltar may still be possible, but must now instead proceed under a different procedure under Gibraltarian law, such as the 2005 Hague Convention mentioned above (if applicable), or the common law procedure, which is the default mechanism for enforcement and recognition of foreign judgments in Gibraltar where no other treaty applies.

However, use of these different procedures to recognise and enforce judgments in Gibraltar, rather than the Brussels Conventions, the Lugano Convention or the Brussels Recast Regulation may mean that less types of judgments from EU member states, Norway, Iceland and Switzerland may be enforced in Gibraltar, and that a greater range of defences against the enforcement of such judgments may be available.

For determining whether the courts of Gibraltar or those of Norway, Iceland, Switzerland or an EU member state should have jurisdiction to decide a legal case, similarly, now that the Brussels Conventions, the Lugano Convention and the Brussels Recast Regulation no longer apply in Gibraltarian law, a different procedure must be used. This may be the 2005 Hague Convention or common law rules. However, in evaluating whether the courts of Gibraltar or another European country should have jurisdiction to decide a dispute with international elements, using these different procedures may actually make it easier than it was under the Lugano Convention, the Brussels Conventions or the Brussels Recast Regulation for a person to establish under Gibraltarian law that the courts of Gibraltar have jurisdiction to decide the claim.

The procedure that will now be applicable for enforcement of UK judgments in Gibraltar is contained in the new Part V of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1993 and is based upon the procedures in the 1968 Brussels Convention, as amended. One notable difference under this procedure compared to the previous rules is that UK judgments must first be registered with the Supreme Court of Gibraltar before being enforceable in Gibraltar. This registration process was not required when the Brussels Recast Regulation applied in Gibraltarian law.

Likewise, the procedure now applicable in Gibraltarian law for determining whether the courts of the UK or Gibraltar should have jurisdiction in a legal case is now governed by procedures based on the Brussels Conventions and not by the Brussels Recast Regulation. While these procedures are largely similar, there are differences and nuances between them. For example, there are special rules in both the Brussels Conventions and the Brussels Recast Regulation requiring certain claims involving consumers to be brought in the country where the consumer is domiciled. However, the rules about jurisdiction in claims involving consumers in the Brussels Recast Regulation covers more types of consumers than the rules in the Brussels Conventions. Therefore, by moving away from the Brussels Recast Regulation to the Brussels Conventions procedure for determining jurisdiction between Gibraltar and the UK, it may be easier under Gibraltarian law for a consumer to sue or be sued in a country other than his or her home country.

What happens next?

In part two, we will examine in detail the transition from the old rules on jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments to the new rules and the impact on cases currently in progress. We will also look forward to what is coming next, including the impact of the upcoming application of the 2019 Hague Convention in Gibraltar law under the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments (2019 Hague Convention etc.) Regulations 2025, published on 13 November 2025.

As Gibraltar’s relationship with the EU continues to evolve, reliable advice on the law is more important than ever. ISOLAS LLP, your trusted advisor since 1892, can help you cut through the noise and confusion of the post-Brexit landscape to give you confidence and clarity in your cross-border transactions or disputes. Get in touch here.