ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS

ENFORCEMENT OF

FOREIGN

JUDGMENTS

United Kingdom

Consulting editor

Freshelds Bruckhaus Deringer

Enforcement of Foreign

Judgments

Consulting editors

Elliot Friedman, David Livshiz, Christian Vandergeest

Freshelds Bruckhaus Deringer



Quick reference guide enabling side-by-side comparison of local insights into relevant treaties,

conventions and other sources of law; limitation periods; types of enforceable order; competent courts;

separation of recognition and enforcement; opposition; jurisdiction of the foreign court; awards and

security for appeals; enforcement and pitfalls; and recent trends.

Generated 24 August 2023

The information contained in this report is indicative only. Law Business Research is not responsible for any actions (or lack thereof) taken as a result of

relying on or in any way using information contained in this report and in no event shall be liable for any damages resulting from reliance on or use of

Lexology GTDT - Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

www.lexology.com/gtdt 1/29

Table of contents

LEGISLATION

Treaties

Intra-state variations

Sources of law

Hague Convention requirements

BRINGING A CLAIM FOR ENFORCEMENT

Limitation periods

Types of enforceable order

Competent courts

Separation of recognition and enforcement

OPPOSITION

Defences

Injunctive relief

REQUIREMENTS FOR RECOGNITION

Basic requirements for recognition

Other factors

Procedural equivalence

JURISDICTION OF THE FOREIGN COURT

Personal jurisdiction

Subject-matter jurisdiction

Service

Fairness of foreign jurisdiction

EXAMINATION OF THE FOREIGN JUDGMENT

Vitiation by fraud

Public policy

Conicting decisions

Enforcement against third parties

Alternative dispute resolution

Favourably treated jurisdictions

Alteration of awards

Lexology GTDT - Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

www.lexology.com/gtdt 2/29

Effect of sanctions

AWARDS AND SECURITY FOR APPEALS

Currency, interest, costs

Security

ENFORCEMENT AND PITFALLS

Enforcement process

Pitfalls

UPDATE AND TRENDS

Hot topics

Lexology GTDT - Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

www.lexology.com/gtdt 3/29

Contributors

United Kingdom

Maria Kostytska

[email protected]

Winston & Strawn LLP

Lexology GTDT - Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

www.lexology.com/gtdt 4/29

LEGISLATION

Treaties

Is your country party to any bilateral or multilateral treaties for the reciprocal recognition and

enforcement of foreign judgments? What is the country’s approach to entering into these treaties,

and what, if any, amendments or reservations has your country made to such treaties?

The United Kingdom has several regimes for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments ( exequatur ):

European; conventional; statutory; and common law, the latter being the default regime applicable in the absence of

conventions or statutes. The applicability of these regimes depends on the country from which a foreign judgment

originates.



EU regime

The EU regime applies to UK proceedings for recognition and enforcement of EU-country judgments from proceedings

instituted before 31 December 2020, which is the end of the Brexit transition period. The EU regime comprises:

the Brussels Recast Regulation (Council Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and

the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters), which applies to EU-country

judgments from proceedings instituted between 10 January 2015 and 31 December 2020;

the Brussels Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the

recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters), which applies to EU-country

judgments from proceedings instituted between 1 March 2002 and 10 January 2015;

the Brussels Convention 1968 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and

commercial matters, which applies to judgments from Gibraltar and certain dependent territories of EU countries

instituted before 31 December 2020; and

the Lugano Convention 2007 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and

commercial matters, which applies to judgments from proceedings in three European Free Trade Association

(EFTA) countries (Iceland, Norway and Switzerland), instituted before 31 December 2020.



Conventional regimes



Hague Court Convention 2005

The UK has been a party to the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005 from 1 October 2015, by

virtue of its EU membership, until 31 December 2020, which was the end of the Brexit transition period. The UK has

been a party to the Hague Convention 2005 pursuant to its own accession since 1 January 2021. The UK considers that

it has been a party to the Convention without interruption since 1 October 2015. The Hague Convention 2005 applies to

judgments originating from EU countries and Mexico (since 2015), Singapore (since 2016), Denmark and Montenegro

(since 2018), and Ukraine (since 2023). The United States, China and Israel have signed but have not yet ratied the

Convention. A prerequisite to the applicability of the Hague Convention 2005 is that the judgment is given by the court

designated in an exclusive choice of court agreement concluded in civil or commercial matters. Conversely, the

Convention does not apply in the absence of such designation in a choice of court agreement.



Hague Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments 1971 and 2019

Lexology GTDT - Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

www.lexology.com/gtdt 5/29

The UK is not a signatory of the Hague Judgments Convention 1971, which is in force between only ve countries:

Albania, Cyprus, Kuwait, the Netherlands and Portugal. It applies to judgments in civil and commercial matters, subject

to multiple exceptions, and to the exclusion of decisions for the payment of any customs duty, tax or penalty.

The UK has not signed the Hague Judgments Convention 2019, which enters into force on 1 September 2023 for EU

countries and Ukraine. The non-EU countries that have signed but not yet ratied the Hague Judgments Convention

2019 are Costa Rica, Israel, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Russia, the United States of America and Uruguay. This

Convention applies broadly to judgments in civil and commercial matters, to the exclusion of revenue, customs or

administrative matters.



Statutory regimes

The statutory regimes comprise two statutes, the Administration of Judgments Act 1920 (AJA 1920) and Foreign

Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 (FJA 1933) .

AJA 1920 applies to judgments from the commonwealth countries listed in Her Majesty’s Reciprocal Enforcement of

Judgments (Administration of Justice Act 1920, Part II (Amendment) Order 1985 .

FJA 1933 applies to judgments from certain countries based on the principle of reciprocity. The application of FJA 1933

has been extended by Her Majesty’s Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Order to judgments from Australia, Canada

(except Quebec), Indica, Israel, Norway, Pakistan, Guernsey, Jersey, the Isle of Man, Suriname and Tonga, as well as EU

countries such as Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands. Its application can be extended to

additional countries based on the principle of reciprocity.

The UK is also a party to conventions and has enacted statutes providing for recognition and enforcement of

judgments in specic sectors. These are generally modelled after FJA 1933. Examples include: the Carriage of Good by

Road Act 1965, the Civil Aviation Act 1982 and the Marchant Shipping Act 1995.



Common law regime

The common law regime is the default regime for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in the UK, in the

absence of a convention or a statute. The common law regime applies notably to judgments from the United States,

Russia, Ukraine, China and Brazil. Under the common law regime, an English court will treat a foreign judgment as a

debt due from the judgment debtor to the judgment creditor, and will then give effect to that debt in an English

judgment (if the requirements are met). The judgment creditor must bring an action on that debt before an English

court. This is usually done via summary judgment procedures. One of the key prerequisites of recognition and

enforcement is that the foreign court had jurisdiction over the defendant, according to English law notions. The English

court will also verify whether the judgment is nal and binding, and whether it is compensatory and not punitive in

nature. It will also verify that the judgment is not contrary to ‘natural justice’, meaning due process. It will also ensure

that the judgment is not contrary to public policy. 

Law stated - 21 July 2023

Intra-state variations

Is there uniformity in the law on the enforcement of foreign judgments among different

jurisdictions within the country?

The law on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is substantially the same in each of the three

jurisdictions in the UK (England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland). However, court procedure and practice for

Lexology GTDT - Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

www.lexology.com/gtdt 6/29

the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments may differ in each jurisdiction. This chapter focuses on the

procedure in England and Wales.

Law stated - 21 July 2023

Sources of law

What are the sources of law regarding the enforcement of foreign judgments?

The sources of law regarding recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments are: EU and multilateral treaties,

domestic statutes and common law.

Law stated - 21 July 2023

Hague Convention requirements

To the extent the enforcing country is a signatory of the Hague Convention on Recognition and

Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, will the court require strict

compliance with its provisions before recognising a foreign judgment?

As mentioned above, the UK is not a signatory to the Hague Conventions 1971 and 2019.

Law stated - 21 July 2023

BRINGING A CLAIM FOR ENFORCEMENT

Limitation periods

What is the limitation period for enforcement of a foreign judgment? When does it commence to

run? In what circumstances would the enforcing court consider the statute of limitations of the

foreign jurisdiction?

Different limitation periods apply depending on the regime.



EU regime

The various EU instruments do not specify the limitation period, but the judgment must still be enforceable

in the jurisdiction in which it was rendered.



Hague Court Convention 2005

Article 8(3) of the Hague Court Convention 2005 requires that the judgment must be enforceable in the country of

origin. As to timing, travaux préparatoires suggest that the judgment can be enforced from the moment it is

considered enforceable under the law of the country of origin until the moment when it stops being so considered.

Further, article 8(4) species that recognition or enforcement may be postponed or refused (without prejudice) if the

judgment is still subject to review or the time limit for seeking ordinary review has not expired. What type of review is

‘ordinary’ as opposed to ‘extraordinary’ is a matter of foreign procedural law, but ‘ordinary’ generally connotes appeal,

and extraordinary generally connotes cassation. 



Lexology GTDT - Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

www.lexology.com/gtdt 7/29

AJA 1920

Pursuant to section 9(1) of the Administration of Judgments Act 1920 (AJA 1920), the judgment creditor must apply to

longer period. For example, in Ogelegbanwei v President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria [2016] EWHC 8 (QB),

proceedings brought to enforce a Nigerian judgment were incorrectly brought under FJA 1933 instead of AJA 1920, but

the High Court permitted the claimants to amend their application to proceed under AJA 1920 even though the 12-

month period had expired.



FJA 1933

Pursuant to section 2(1) of the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 (FJA 1933), the judgment

creditor must apply to register the judgment within six years from the date of the judgment or, where the judgment has

been subject to appeal, from the last judgment in those proceedings.



Common law regime

Section 24(1) of the Limitation Act 1980 provides that an action to enforce a judgment must be brought within six years

of the date on which the judgment became enforceable. The point in time when the foreign judgment becomes

enforceable is a matter of foreign procedural law.

Law stated - 21 July 2023

Types of enforceable order

Which remedies ordered by a foreign court are enforceable in your jurisdiction?

The common law regime and more dated statutory mechanisms provide for enforcement of only monetary judgments

or orders, to the exclusion of interim or injunctive relief. More recent conventional mechanisms provide for

enforcement of not only monetary judgments or orders, but also provisional (including protective) measures.



EU regime

Article 2(a) of the Brussels Recast Regulation contains a broad denition of ‘judgment’. Judgment is enforceable

regardless of its precise denomination, be it a decree, order, decision, writ of execution, or decision on the

determination of costs or expenses by an ocer of the court. The judgment includes not only monetary awards, but

also provisional, including protective, measures ordered by a competent court. In particular, it includes protective

orders aimed at obtaining information or preserving evidence. It excludes measures that are not protective in nature,

for example, ordering the hearing of a witness.



Hague Court Convention 2005

Article 4(1) of the Hague Court Convention 2005 denes judgment more narrowly as any decision on the merits, to the

exclusion of interim measures of protection. Irrespective of the precise denomination, the term judgment covers a

decree, order and determination of costs or expenses by the court, including an ocer of the court – provided that the

determination relates to a decision on the merits. Article 7 further excludes interim measures from the Convention’s

scope.

Lexology GTDT - Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

www.lexology.com/gtdt 8/29



AJA 1920

AJA 1920 applies to the enforcement of any monetary judgment or order made by a court in any civil proceedings

whereby a sum of money is payable. It also applies to enforcement of arbitral awards that have become enforceable in

the same manner as judgments at the place of arbitration pursuant to the law of the place of arbitration.



FJA 1933

FJA 1933 applies to the enforcement of monetary judgments in civil and criminal proceedings, for sums of money as

compensation or damages, to the exclusion of sums payable in respect of taxes, nes and other penalties. It does

cover interim payments, in addition to nal and conclusive judgments. FJA 1933 also makes provision for the

enforcement of arbitral awards that have become enforceable in the same manner as judgments in the place where

they were made.



Common law regime

At common law, the judgment must be for a specic sum of money to be enforceable in the UK. It also must be nal

and binding in the jurisdiction where it was rendered. Interim awards and injunctive relief are not enforceable at

common law.

Law stated - 21 July 2023

Competent courts

Must cases seeking enforcement of foreign judgments be brought in a particular court?

Proceedings seeking recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments should be brought before the High Court in

England and Wales, the Court of Session in Scotland or the High Court of Northern Ireland, depending on the

jurisdiction in which the judgment is sought to be enforced.

Law stated - 21 July 2023

Separation of recognition and enforcement

To what extent is the process for obtaining judicial recognition of a foreign judgment separate

from the process for enforcement?

Recognition and enforcement are separate processes in the UK. Because a foreign judgment has no direct effect in the

UK, it cannot be enforced until it is recognised in the UK. Once the foreign judgment has been recognised, it can be

enforced just as any English judgment. Recognition of the foreign judgment gives the judgment creditor access to the

full spectrum of coercive measures available in the English legal system.

Law stated - 21 July 2023

OPPOSITION

Lexology GTDT - Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

www.lexology.com/gtdt 9/29

Defences

Can a defendant raise merits-based defences to liability or to the scope of the award entered in

the foreign jurisdiction, or is the defendant limited to more narrow grounds for challenging a

foreign judgment?

Generally, English courts will not review the merits of the foreign judgment and will not inquire into substantive errors of

facts or law.



EU regime

Article 52 of the Brussels Recast Regulation unequivocally states that under no circumstances may the foreign

judgment be reviewed as to substance. Importantly, the English court shall not review the jurisdiction of the foreign

court over the matter. The English court shall be bound by the ndings of fact on which the foreign court based its

jurisdiction.

Pursuant to article 45 of the Brussels Recast Regulation, recognition of the foreign judgment may be refused on limited

grounds if:

recognition of the judgment would be manifestly contrary to the public policy of the UK;

the defendant was not served with proceedings in time to enable the preparation of a proper defence, and the

judgment was given in default of the defendant’s appearance; or

conicting judgments exist in the UK or other EU member states.



Equivalent rules and defences are set out in articles 34 to 35 of the Brussels Regulation, articles 34 to 35 of the Lugano

Convention and articles 27 to 28 of the Brussels Convention.



Hague Court Convention 2005

Article 8(2) of the Hague Court Convention 2005 states that there shall be no review of the merits of the judgment

given by the court of origin. The English court shall be bound by the ndings of fact on which the foreign court based

its jurisdiction, unless the judgment was given by default.

Pursuant to article 9, recognition of the foreign judgment may be refused on limited grounds if:

the choice-of-court agreement was null and void under the law of the chosen court, unless the chosen court has

determined that the agreement is valid;

a party lacked capacity to conclude the choice-of-court agreement under English law;

the proceedings were not served on the defendant in time to prepare a proper defence, unless the defendant

entered an appearance and presented their case; or service was incompatible with fundamental principles of

English law;

the judgment was obtained by fraud in connection with a matter of procedure;

recognition would be manifestly incompatible with the public policy of the UK, including where the foreign

proceedings were incompatible with fundamental principles of procedural fairness of the UK; or

conicting judgments exist in the UK or other member states.



Lexology GTDT - Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

www.lexology.com/gtdt 10/29

AJA 1920

Under the Administration of Judgments Act 1920 (AJA 1920), the court’s power to register a foreign judgment is

discretionary. To that effect, section 9(1) of AJA provides that the court may register the foreign judgment where it

considers it would be just and convenient for the judgment to be enforced in the UK. Section 9(2) sets out specic

grounds on which registration of the foreign judgment shall be refused:

the foreign court acted without jurisdiction;

the judgment debtor, who was neither a resident of the foreign court’s jurisdiction nor carrying on business there,

did not voluntarily appear or otherwise submit to the foreign court’s jurisdiction; 

the judgment was obtained by fraud;

an appeal against the judgment is pending, or the judgment debtor is entitled and intends to appeal; or

the judgment was in respect of a cause of action that for public policy or similar reason could not have been

entertained by the English court.



Unlike under the EU regime, the English court may review jurisdiction of the foreign court and may refuse recognition if

it considers that the foreign court lacked jurisdiction. Also, failure to comply with English law requirements of presence

in the jurisdiction or submission to the jurisdiction can lead to non-recognition of the foreign judgment. There is some

scope for merits-based review, particularly in the consideration of whether the judgment was obtained by fraud. The

inquiry as to English public policy is not whether the foreign judgment violates it, but whether the cause of action was

such that an English court could not have entertained it for reasons of public policy. 



FJA 1933

The Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 (FJA 1933) provides for simplied procedures for foreign

judgment registration, following which registration shall or may be set aside on mandatory or discretionary grounds.

Pursuant to section 4(1)(a), registration shall be set aside if:

the judgment was not properly registered under FJA 1933;

the foreign court lacked jurisdiction;

the judgment debtor did not receive notice of the foreign proceedings in time to enable preparation of a proper

defence and did not appear (notwithstanding that process may have been served in accordance with foreign

law);

the judgment was obtained by fraud;

enforcement of the judgment would be contrary to public policy of the UK; or

the rights under the judgment are not vested in the person making the application for registration.



Pursuant to section 4(1)(b), registration may be set aside if the matter in dispute had previously been the subject of a

nal and conclusive judgment by a court with jurisdiction in the matter.

As under AJA 1920, there is some scope for merits-based review, particularly in the consideration of whether the

judgment was obtained by fraud. Section 4(2) of FJA 1933 provides for limited review of the foreign court’s jurisdiction

pursuant to English law notions.



Common law regime

At common law, recognition of the foreign judgment debt is discretionary. Generally, English courts will not give

Lexology GTDT - Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

www.lexology.com/gtdt 11/29

judgment where:

the foreign court lacked jurisdiction according to English law notions;

the judgment is contrary to the requirements of natural or substantial justice (called ‘due process’ in other

jurisdictions), which encompasses notice and an opportunity to be heard;

the judgment was obtained by fraud;

the judgment is contrary to the public policy of the UK; or

the judgment is not compensatory but punitive in nature (for taxes, nes or other penalties).



When considering the natural or substantial justice requirement, the English court will apply the principles of justice

rather than strict procedural rules. The court is not restricted to a lack of notice or denial of a proper opportunity to be

heard and can consider other procedural irregularities that undermine the right to a fair trial. However, procedural

irregularities that are merely technical or formalistic may not suce to impeach a foreign judgment.

Furthermore, under section 32(1) of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, a foreign judgment may not be

recognised where it was obtained in breach of a valid jurisdictional or arbitration clause, unless the judgment debtor

submitted to the foreign court’s jurisdiction.

Law stated - 21 July 2023

Injunctive relief

May a party obtain injunctive relief to prevent foreign judgment enforcement proceedings in your

jurisdiction?

Common law regime

English courts have the power and discretion to order an injunction preventing a judgment creditor from enforcing a

foreign judgment in England and elsewhere (anti-enforcement injunction). As stated in Dicey, Morris & Collins on the

Conict of Laws , English courts may restrain a party over whom they have personal jurisdiction from the institution or

continuance of proceedings in foreign courts, or the enforcement of foreign judgments. In practice, anti-enforcement

injunctions, unlike anti-suit injunctions, are rare. A common feature of the cases in which anti-enforcement injunctions

were granted was an exclusive English jurisdiction (or London-seated arbitration) clause, disregarded in foreign

proceedings.

In the foundational case Ellerman Lines Ltd v Read [1928] 2 KB 144, the court granted an injunction restraining the

judgment creditor from enforcing a Turkish judgment obtained both in breach of contract and by fraud on the Turkish

court. While the injunction ordered by the rst-instance court was limited to England, the appellate court considered

that so long as the English court had jurisdiction over the person, it had the power to issue a worldwide injunction.

In Bank St Petersburg v Arkhangelsky [2014] EWCA Civ 593, the court granted an injunction restraining enforcement of

judgments obtained in Russia, where the parties had agreed to resolve their dispute exclusively in England, and pending

resolution of the English proceedings.

Ecobank Transnational Inc v Tanoh [2015] EWHC 1874 (Comm) illustrates that applications for anti-enforcement

injunctions should be made promptly and should take the form of anti-suit injunctions.

The longer the foreign proceedings continue without an application to restrain them, the less likely the English court

would be to grant an injunction. In that case, the High Court discharged a worldwide injunction restraining the

enforcement of judgments obtained in Togo and Côte d’Ivoire on the basis that the applicant should have sought an

anti-suit injunction earlier in the proceedings.

Lexology GTDT - Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

www.lexology.com/gtdt 12/29

In SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 599, the Court of Appeal granted an anti-enforcement

injunction preventing enforcement of a US judgment through US enforcement measures (assignment order and

turnover order), insofar as they targeted the UK assets and interfered with the UK jurisdiction. In that case, the claimant

rst brought proceedings in the UK and failed, and then brought proceedings in the US and succeeded in obtaining a US

judgment. The judgment creditor then sought to enforce in the UK the heads of the US judgment that were not barred

by issue estoppel in the UK. This complex case puts at issue competing jurisdiction and incompatible enforcement

measures of the US and the UK.



EU regime

The EU regime limits the judgment debtor’s ability to block enforcement of judgment by way of injunction in the UK. In

Allianz SpA v West Tankers [2007] UKHL 4, the House of Lords referred a question to the European Court of Justice as

to whether an anti-suit injunction can be issued under the Brussels Regulation to restrain proceedings in breach of an

arbitration agreement. The answer was that such anti-suit injunction would be inconsistent with the Brussels

Regulation. In Nori Holdings Ltd v Bank Otkritie Financial Corporation [2018] EWHC 1343 (Comm), the English court re-

examined the matter under the Brussels Recast Regulation and found that the position remained unchanged. In that

case, the Commercial Court refused to grant an anti-suit injunction to restrain Cypriot court proceedings commenced in

breach of an arbitration clause. These cases have been interpreted as a prohibition of anti-enforcement injunctions

under the EU regime generally.

Nevertheless, article 44(1) of the Brussels Recast Regulation allows a judgment debtor who applies to challenge the

recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment in English courts to simultaneously apply to:

limit the enforcement proceedings to protective measures;

make any enforcement conditional on the judgment creditor providing security; or

suspend the enforcement proceedings in whole or in part.



These measures may be viewed as functional equivalents of an anti-enforcement injunction for the duration of the

challenge to recognition and enforcement.

Law stated - 21 July 2023

REQUIREMENTS FOR RECOGNITION

Basic requirements for recognition

What are the basic mandatory requirements for recognition of a foreign judgment?

The substantive requirements for recognition of a foreign judgment are the ip side of the defences against its

recognition. The formal requirements are set out below.



EU regime

Under the EU regime, the foreign judgment shall be recognised pursuant to simplied procedures, unless grounds for

refusing recognition exist. Pursuant to article 36 of the Brussels Recast Regulation, the foreign judgment shall be

recognised without any special procedures, and the interested party may apply for a decision that there are no grounds

for refusing recognition. According to article 37, the interested party shall produce:

Lexology GTDT - Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

www.lexology.com/gtdt 13/29

a copy of the judgment that satises the conditions of authenticity; and

a certicate from the foreign court that rendered the judgment containing standard information about the

judgment (Annex I).



The English court may require a translation of the certicate or a translation of the judgment. Pursuant to article 61, no

legalisation or similar formality is required.

Analogous provisions can be found in articles 33 and 53 to 56 of the Brussels Regulation, articles 33 and 53 to 56 of

the Lugano Convention, and articles 26 and 46 to 49 of the Brussels Convention.



Hague Court Convention 2005

Article 8(1) of the Hague Court Convention 2005 provides that a judgment of a court of a member state designed in the

exclusive choice of court agreement shall be recognised in other member states, unless grounds for refusing

recognition exist under the Convention.

Article 13 species that the party seeking recognition shall produce:

a complete and certied copy of the judgment;

the exclusive choice of court agreement, a certied copy thereof, or other evidence of its existence;

if the judgment was given by default, the original or a certied copy of a document establishing service of the

proceedings on the defendant;

any documents necessary to establish that the judgment is enforceable in the state where it was made; or

in case of a court-approved judicial settlement, a certicate from the foreign court that the judicial settlement is

enforceable in the same manner as a judgment in the state where it was made.



These documents should be accompanied by a certied English translation. According to article 18, legalisation or

analogous formality, such as apostille, is not required.



Generally

Generally, the party seeking recognition of a foreign judgment under any regime needs to apply for registration in

accordance with the procedures in Parts 74 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). An application for registration

must be made in the High Court and may be made without notice. The application must be supported by written

evidence exhibiting:

the judgment or a veried, certied or authenticated copy thereof; or

an English translation of the judgment (where the judgment is not in English), certied by a notary public or other

qualied person, or accompanied by written evidence conrming accuracy of the translation.



Summary judgment procedure in Part 24 of the CPR will generally be available. An application for summary judgment

must be supported by written evidence. Such evidence can generally come in the form of a solicitor’s witness

statement.

Law stated - 21 July 2023

Lexology GTDT - Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

www.lexology.com/gtdt 14/29

Other factors

May other non-mandatory factors for recognition of a foreign judgment be considered and, if so,

what factors?

While reciprocity per se is not a factor, it forms a basis of the system of recognition and enforcement of foreign

judgments under the Administration of Judgments Act 1920 (AJA 1920) and the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal

Enforcement) Act 1933 (FJA 1933). Reciprocity is a consideration for His Majesty’s Orders listing the countries covered

by these statutory regimes.

Reciprocity is also an implicit basis of the conventional regimes, insofar as conventions only apply to recognition of

judgments between the member states.

As conrmed by the Supreme Court in Rubin & Anor v Euronance SA & Ors [2012] UKSC 46, reciprocity is not a

criterion for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments under the common law regime.

Law stated - 21 July 2023

Procedural equivalence

Is there a requirement that the judicial proceedings where the judgment was entered correspond

to due process in your jurisdiction and, if so, how is that requirement evaluated?

Procedural equivalence is not a standalone requirement for the recognition or enforcement of a foreign judgment.

However, procedural fairness is relevant for various defences to recognition or enforcement, such as natural justice

under common law, public policy of according the right to fair trial pursuant to article 6 of the European Convention on

Human Rights, public policy of respecting the fundamental principles of procedural fairness service pursuant to the

Hague Court Convention 2005, notice in time to enable preparation of a proper defence under the statutory regimes, etc.

As seen in Maronier v Larmer [2003] QB 620, there is a presumption that the court procedures of the state parties to

the European Convention on Human Rights are compliant with article 6. However, such presumption can be rebutted, in

which case it would be contrary to public policy to enforce the judgment.

Law stated - 21 July 2023

JURISDICTION OF THE FOREIGN COURT

Personal jurisdiction

Will the enforcing court examine whether the court where the judgment was entered had personal

jurisdiction over the defendant and, if so, how is that requirement met?

Whether and to what extent the English court will review the foreign court’s jurisdictional determinations depends on

the applicable regime.

At common law and under the statutory regimes, the foreign court’s personal jurisdiction over the defendant is a

prerequisite to the foreign judgment’s recognition and enforcement in the UK. By contrast, there is very limited scope

for review of personal jurisdiction under the European and convention regimes.



Common law

Lexology GTDT - Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

www.lexology.com/gtdt 15/29

At common law, the English court will verify whether the foreign court had jurisdiction in personam in according to the

English rules, which require either presence within the jurisdiction or submission to the jurisdiction. According to Rule

47 in Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conict of Laws , a foreign court has jurisdiction to give a judgment in personam

capable of recognition or enforcement against the judgment debtor in the following cases:

the judgment debtor was present in the foreign country – for natural persons, this requires physical presence, and

for legal persons, this requires a xed place of business in the territory; or

the judgment debtor submitted to the foreign court’s jurisdiction by voluntarily appearing or ling a claim or

counterclaim in the proceedings or agreeing to submit to jurisdiction before the commencement of the

proceedings.



Statutory regimes

Section 9(2)(a) of the Administration of Judgments Act 1920 (AJA 1920) expressly provides that registration of the

foreign judgment shall be refused if the foreign court acted without jurisdiction. Similarly, section 4(1)(a) of the Foreign

Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 (FJA 1933) mandates that registration shall be set aside if the foreign

court lacked jurisdiction. Mirroring common law, section 4(2) species the cases in which the foreign court is deemed

to have had jurisdiction in personam :

the judgment debtor submitted to the foreign court’s jurisdiction by voluntarily appearing or ling a claiming or

counterclaim in the proceedings or agreeing to submit to jurisdiction before the commencement of the

proceedings; or

the judgment debtor was a resident, was incorporated or had its principal place of business in the foreign court’s

country, etc.

Law stated - 21 July 2023

Subject-matter jurisdiction

Will the enforcing court examine whether the court where the judgment was entered had subject-

matter jurisdiction over the controversy and, if so, how is that requirement met?

Generally, the English court shall not review the foreign court’s subject matter jurisdiction and shall be bound by the

foreign court’s ndings of fact as to its jurisdiction. Accordingly, recognition of the foreign judgment shall not be denied

if the foreign court wrongly asserted jurisdiction over the matter. Nevertheless, the subject matter of the judgment and

the foreign court’s jurisdiction over it may be decisive under the EU regime and the Hague Court Convention 2005.



EU regime

If the foreign judgment falls outside the scope of the European instruments, it will not be recognised thereunder. Article

1(2) of the Brussels Recast Regulation excludes the following matters from its scope of application:

status or legal capacity of natural persons;

rights in property arising out of marriage or equivalent;

bankruptcy, liquidation or judicial administration;

social security;

arbitration;

alimony; and

Lexology GTDT - Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

www.lexology.com/gtdt 16/29

wills and succession.



Similar provisions delineating the scope of application are contained in the other European instruments.

It follows that the foreign judgment regarding a matter falling outside the substantive scope of the European

instrument will not be recognised thereunder, although it may still be recognisable under the default common law

regime.



Hague Court Convention 2005

Pursuant to article 1, the Hague Court Convention 2005 only applies in the presence of exclusive choice of court

agreements concluded in civil or commercial matters. Article 2 excludes the following matters from the Convention’s

substantive scope:

personal, family or household matters;

employment contracts;

status and legal capacity of natural persons;

alimony;

rights in property arising out of marriage or equivalent;

wills and succession;

insolvency or equivalent;

carriage of passengers and goods;

marine pollution, limitation of liability for maritime claims, emergency towage and salvage;

anti-trust;

liability for nuclear damage;

personal injury;

tort;

rights in rem in immovable property;

validity, nullity, or dissolution of legal persons, validity of decisions of their organs;

validity of IP rights other than copyright;

infringement of intellectual property rights other than copyright and related rights; and

validity of entries in public registers.



It follows that in the absence of an exclusive choice of court agreement, or if a matter falls outside of the Convention’s

substantive scope, the foreign judgment will not be recognised thereunder, although it may still be recognisable under

the default common law regime.

Law stated - 21 July 2023

Service

Must the defendant have been technically or formally served with notice of the original action in

the foreign jurisdiction, or is actual notice sucient? How much notice is usually considered

sucient?

Common law

Lexology GTDT - Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

www.lexology.com/gtdt 17/29

As discussed above, a breach of natural justice in the foreign proceedings, particularly in the form of a failure to give

the defendant notice of the proceedings and a fair opportunity to be heard and to present their case, is a defence to

recognition and enforcement of the resulting foreign judgment in England. Judging whether there was due notice to the

defendant of the foreign proceedings is a two-step process.

First, the English court will consider whether service complied with foreign procedural rules. As to the rst point, the

English courts will not measure the validity of service of the foreign proceedings by their own procedural rules. This will

be a matter of foreign law, as well as any applicable international conventions (such as the Hague Service Convention)

or bilateral arrangements between the claimant’s state and the defendant’s state.

Second, the English court will consider whether service complied with English law notions of natural justice. As to the

second point, the English court will consider whether the foreign proceedings were in fact brought to the attention to

the defendant. A historic illustration of this principle is Buchanan v Rucker (1808) 9 East 192, where a nailing a copy of

the summons to the courthouse door did not constitute due service – even though it may have been a common

practice in Tobago – and the judgment obtained in Tobago could not be enforced in England.

Practical advice to claimants is to exhaust or at least attempt all available means of service of the foreign proceedings

(service via the Central Authority under the Hague Convention, through diplomatic channels, through postal channels,

by email, by messenger, by social media such as Telegram or Facebook, etc) and to be able to produce proof of such

service or attempted service to the English court. While service of the claim form (or equivalent) is the most important,

claimants should also exercise due care in serving subsequent documents on the defendant, from the perspective of

affording it an opportunity to be heard and to present its case throughout the proceedings. Relatedly, the English court

will consider whether the length of time between service of the claim form (or equivalent) and the subsequent

notications of hearings was sucient to enable the defendant to prepare a proper defence.

At common law, it does not matter whether under foreign procedural rules the defendant had an opportunity to

challenge the validity of service but failed to avail itself of such opportunity. At the recognition and enforcement stage

in England, the defendant or judgment debtor will still be able to raise lack of proper service as a defence.

Lack of notice and an opportunity to be heard and to present the case is a ground for refusing recognition and

enforcement of a foreign judgment in all other regimes applicable in England, as discussed above and below.



EU regime

Pursuant to article 45 of the Brussels Recast Regulations, recognition of the foreign judgment may be refused where

the defendant was not served with proceedings in time to enable the preparation of a proper defence, and the judgment

was given in default of the defendant’s appearance. Article 34 of the Brussels Regulation additionally required the

defendant to challenge the default judgment in the foreign country for improper service to be able to resist recognition

and enforcement of the foreign country on this ground. Reeve and others v Plummer [2014] EWHC 4695 (QB)

illustrates the application of article 34 of the Brussels Regulation to the effect that a Belgian default judgment was

registered against two of the three defendants who failed to challenge the validity of the default judgment as required

by the Brussels Regulation.

Similar service-related defences are set out in article 27 of the Brussels Convention and article 34 of the Lugano

Convention.



Hague Court Convention 2005

Pursuant to article 9 of the Hague Court Convention 2005, recognition of the foreign judgment may be refused where:

the proceedings were not served on the defendant in time to prepare a proper defence, unless the defendant entered an

appearance and presented their case; or service was incompatible with fundamental principles of English law.

Lexology GTDT - Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

www.lexology.com/gtdt 18/29



Statutory regimes

Both AJA 1920 and FJA 1933 contain provisions contemplating refusal of registration of a foreign judgment that was

entered in default of appearance or where the defendant was not duly served with process. Section 9(2) of AJA 1920

provides that registration of the foreign judgment shall be refused where the judgment debtor who was neither a

resident of the foreign court’s jurisdiction nor carrying on business there, did not voluntarily appear or otherwise submit

to the foreign court’s jurisdiction. Pursuant to section 4(1)(a) of FJA 1933, registration shall be set aside where the

judgment debtor did not receive notice of the foreign proceedings in time to enable preparation of a proper defence and

did not appear (notwithstanding that process may have been served in accordance with foreign law).

Law stated - 21 July 2023

Fairness of foreign jurisdiction

Will the court consider the relative inconvenience of the foreign jurisdiction to the defendant as a

basis for declining to enforce a foreign judgment?

Forum non conveniens is not a ground for denying recognition or enforcement of a foreign judgment under any of the

regimes. English courts will not consider the factual nexus between the foreign jurisdiction rendering judgment and the

underlying disputes, nor the convenience of the parties, witnesses or experts, in determining whether to recognise or

enforce a foreign judgment.

Law stated - 21 July 2023

EXAMINATION OF THE FOREIGN JUDGMENT

Vitiation by fraud

Will the court examine the foreign judgment for allegations of fraud upon the defendant or the

court?

Common law

At common law, fraud is a defence to recognition and enforcement of registration of a foreign judgment. This common

law principle is set out in Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conict of Laws Rule 53: a foreign judgment is impeachable

for fraud. Such fraud may be either: fraud by the judgment creditor; or fraud by the foreign court pronouncing the

judgment. As stated in Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Highland Financial Partners LP and others [2013] EWCA Civ 328,

there has to be conscious and deliberate dishonesty, and it has to be material for the consideration of the evidence and

causative of the impugned judgment.

The judgment debtor remains entitled to raise the defence of fraud even if the facts relied upon were known to the

judgment debtor and could have been raised in the foreign proceedings, and even if the foreign court had rejected them

( Vadala v Lawes (1890) 25 QBD 310 (CA)). However, the defence of fraud would not succeed where the issue of fraud

has been litigated in the foreign proceedings, and the judgment debtor has not adduced any new evidence justifying an

examination of the issue of fraud by the English court ( House of Spring Gardens Ltd v Waite [1991] 1 QB 241; Owens

Bank v Etoile [1992] 2 AC 43). In such a case, the English court may strike out the allegation of fraud for estoppel or

abuse of process.



European regime

Lexology GTDT - Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

www.lexology.com/gtdt 19/29

The European instruments do not contain a separate defence for fraud. However, it has been accepted that recognition

or enforcement of a foreign judgment tainted by fraud may be refused for violation of public policy ( Smith v Huertas

[2015] EWHC 3745 (Comm)).



Hague Court Convention 2005

Pursuant to article 9 of the Hague Choice of Court Convention 2005, recognition of a foreign judgment may be refused

if it was obtained by fraud in connection with a matter of procedure. An Explanatory Report on the Hague Convention

gives examples of procedural fraud: where the plaintiff deliberately serves the writ on the wrong address; where gives

the defendant wrong information as to the time and place of the hearing; or where either party seeks to corrupt a judge,

juror or witness, or deliberately conceals key evidence.



Statutory regimes

The statutory regimes of the Administration of Judgments Act 1920 (AJA 1920) and Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal

Enforcement) Act 1933 (FJA 1933) enshrine the common law principles. Section 9(2)(d) of AJA 1920 provides that

registration of the foreign judgment shall be refused if it was obtained by fraud. Similarly, section 4(1)(a) provides that

registration shall be set aside if the judgment was obtained by fraud. In Owens Bank v Etoile [1992] 2 AC 443 stands

for the proposition that the reference to fraud in AJA 1920 must be construed by reference to the common law

principles. The FJA 1933 applies in the same manner, as seen in Syal v Heyward [1948] 2 KB 443.

Law stated - 21 July 2023

Public policy

Will the court examine the foreign judgment for consistency with the enforcing jurisdiction’s

public policy and substantive laws?

Violation of the UK public policy is a ground for refusing recognition, enforcement or registration of a foreign judgment

under all regimes. However, the operation of the public policy defence varies between the regimes.



Common law

At common law, violation of the UK public policy is a ground for refusing recognition, enforcement or registration of a

foreign judgment. According to Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conict of Laws Rule 54, a foreign judgment is

impeachable on the ground that its recognition or enforcement would be contrary to public policy. Lenkor Energy

Trading DMCC v Puri [2020] EWHC 1432 (QB) claries that it is recognition or enforcement of the foreign judgment and

not the underlying transaction upon which the judgment is based which must offend English public policy. In that case,

the Court of Appeal held that a Dubai judgment in respect of dishonoured checks could be enforced in England, despite

the fact that the underlying gas oil-purchase transaction for which the checks were tendered was tainted by illegality.

Examples of cases in which foreign judgments were not recognised or enforced for violation of English public policy

include:

the cause of action in the foreign proceedings is unknown to English law (Re Macartney (No. 2) [1921] 1 Ch 522);

the interest rate on the foreign judgment was so manifestly excessive that it amounted to a penalty (JSC VTB

Bank v Skurikhin and others [2014] EWHC 271 (Comm));

the foreign judgment was obtained in breach of an arbitration agreement or injunction (AK Investment CJSC v

Lexology GTDT - Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

www.lexology.com/gtdt 20/29

Kyrgyz Mobil Tel Ltd [2011] UKPC 7); and

enforcement of the foreign judgment would offend the principle of res judicata as it is inconsistent with a

previous decision of a competent English court in proceedings between the same parties or their privies (ED & F

Man (Sugar) Ltd v Haryanto (No. 2) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 429).



EU regime

According to the European instruments, recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment may be refused where it

would be manifestly contrary to the public policy of the UK. Pursuant to article 45 of the Brussels Recast Regulation,

recognition of the foreign judgment may be refused on limited grounds if recognition of the judgment would be

manifestly contrary to the public policy of the UK. Equivalent defences are set out in article 34 of the Brussels

Regulation, article 34 of the Lugano Convention and article 27 of the Brussels Convention. This defence is interpreted

strictly and only applies in exceptional circumstances where recognition or enforcement would be at variance to an

unacceptable degree with the UK legal order, or if there is a manifest breach of a rule of law or right regarded as

essential in the EU legal order.

Under the EU regime, a deprivation of the right to fair trial under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights

may also violate the UK public policy for judgment recognition and enforcement purposes. Whilst the procedures of

other Convention States are presumed to comply with article 6, this presumption can be rebutted in some cases.

Examples of cases in which recognition or enforcement of foreign judgments was refused for violation of the public

policy of the UK to protect the right to fair trial in accordance with article 6 of the European Convention on Human

Rights include:

enforcement of the Ukrainian judgment would amount to a agrant breach of the principle of nality and legal

certainty (Merchant International Co Ltd v Natsionalna Aktsionerna Kompaniya Naftogaz Ukrayiny [2012] EWCA

Civ 196; see also Joint Stock Co Aeroot-Russian Airlines v Berezovsky [2014] EWCA Civ 20); and

enforcement of the Maltese judgment would be manifestly contrary to public policy due to a 26-year delay, failure

to inform the defendant of the subsequent revival of the proceedings and failure of its court-appointed

representatives to seek instructions (Laserpoint Ltd v Prime Minister of Malta and others [2016] EWHC 1820

(QB)).



Hague Court Convention 2005

Similarly, pursuant to article 9 of the Hague Court Convention 2005, recognition of the foreign judgment may be refused

where it would be manifestly incompatible with the public policy of the UK, including where the foreign proceedings

were incompatible with fundamental principles of procedural fairness of the UK.



Statutory regimes

Both AJA 1920 and FJA 1933 contain provisions contemplating refusal of registration of a foreign judgment for

violation of public policy. Pursuant to section 9(2)(f) of AJA 1920, registration of the foreign judgment shall be refused

where the judgment was in respect of a cause of action that for public policy or similar reason could not have been

entertained by the English court. Pursuant to section 4(1)(a) of FJA 1933, registration shall be set aside where

enforcement of the judgment would be contrary to public policy of the UK.

Law stated - 21 July 2023

Lexology GTDT - Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

www.lexology.com/gtdt 21/29

Conicting decisions

What will the court do if the foreign judgment sought to be enforced is in conict with another

nal and conclusive judgment involving the same parties or parties in privity?

Under all regimes, enforcement of the foreign judgment may be denied if it is in conict with another nal and

conclusive judgment involving the same parties or their privies. There are slight variations in the articulation of this

defence across the regimes.



European regime

Pursuant to article 45(1)(c) of the Brussels Recast Regulation, recognition of the foreign judgment may be refused if

conicting judgments exist in the UK or other EU member states. Equivalent defences are set out in article 34(3) of the

Brussels Regulation, article 34(3) of the Lugano Convention and article 27 of the Brussels Convention.



Hague Court Convention 2005

Pursuant to article 9 of the Hague Court Convention 2005, recognition of the foreign judgment may be refused if

conicting judgments exist in the UK or other member states.



Statutory regimes

Pursuant to section 4(1)(b) of FJA 1933, registration of the foreign judgment may be set aside if the matter in dispute

had previously been the subject of a nal and conclusive judgment by a court having jurisdiction in the matter. While

section 9(2) of AJA 1920 does not specically articulate this defence, the same result may be obtained under the rubric

of ‘public policy or similar reason’.



Common law

At common law, the existence of a prior conicting English judgment between the same parties or their privies is a

defence to recognition and enforcement of the foreign judgment on the ground of public policy.

Law stated - 21 July 2023

Enforcement against third parties

Will a court apply the principles of agency or alter ego to enforce a judgment against a party

other than the named judgment debtor?

Generally, a foreign judgment creates a debt between the judgment debtor and the judgment creditor, and as such, is

only enforceable against the person against whom it is made. Only in limited circumstances would the English courts

look beyond the legal personality of the judgment debtor and enforce the debt against a third party by operation of the

principles of piercing the corporate veil, agency, alter ego or group of companies. In Prest v Petrodel Resources

Limited [2013] UKSC 34, the Supreme Court pierced the corporate veil where the person:

was under an existing legal obligation, liability or restriction; and

Lexology GTDT - Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

www.lexology.com/gtdt 22/29

deliberately evaded that obligation, liability or restriction; or

deliberately frustrated the enforcement of that obligation, liability or restriction by interposing a company under

their control.



This principle was implied in Kensington International Ltd v Congo [2005] EWHC 2684 (Comm) in the context of

recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment against a state. In that case, the court pierced the corporate veil

and allowed enforcement of judgments made against Congo against the assets of a Congolese state-controlled

company, by making a third-party debt order garnishing the payments owed to that company by oil consignees. The

court held that the Congolese companies were a sham or façade, had no legal substance, had no existence separate

from the Congolese state and were simply part of the state, and were set up to defeat the creditors’ claims against the

state.

Law stated - 21 July 2023

Alternative dispute resolution

What will the court do if the parties had an enforceable agreement to use alternative dispute

resolution, and the defendant argues that this requirement was not followed by the party seeking

to enforce?

Common law

By application of common law in conjunction with section 32(1) of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982

(CJJA 1982), a foreign judgment shall not be recognised and enforced in the UK if it has been obtained in breach of an

agreement to settlement the dispute elsewhere. Excluded from the scope of this provision are cases in which the

judgment debtor counterclaimed in the proceedings or otherwise submitted to the jurisdiction of that court. Section

32(1) also does not apply if the agreement to settle the dispute elsewhere was illegal, void, unenforceable or incapable

of being performed for reasons not attributable to the judgment creditor. In that regard, the English court is not bound

by any prior determinations of the foreign court.

If an English court has previously ordered an anti-suit injunction restraining the judgment creditor from obtaining a

foreign judgment in breach of an arbitration agreement, the resulting judgment would be obtained in contempt of the

English court and would be unenforceable for the violation of public policy.



EU regime

The EU regime does not contain a provision equivalent to section 32(1) of CJJA 1992 and is silent on the effect of an

alternative dispute resolution clause on judgment enforceability.



Hague Court Convention 2005

The rule in section 32(1) of CJJA 1982 does not apply to the judgments rendered under the Hague Court Convention

2005.

Signicantly, the Convention applies only in the presence of an exclusive choice of court agreement. Articles 8 to 9 of

the Convention limit (but do not preclude) the English courts’ ability to entertain an allegation that the foreign judgment

was made in breach of an arbitration agreement, and conversely, pursuant to an exclusive choice of court agreement

that was null and void under foreign law, where the foreign court itself did not conduct such inquiry.

Lexology GTDT - Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

www.lexology.com/gtdt 23/29

Law stated - 21 July 2023

Favourably treated jurisdictions

Are judgments from some foreign jurisdictions given greater deference than judgments from

others? If so, why?

Formally, the English courts do not give any greater deference to judgments from some jurisdictions as opposed to

others. At the same time, the EU regime, with its straightforward criteria and uniform procedures, renders the

judgments more readily enforceable given its underlying policy objectives, such as a harmonised approach to

jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments from the EU member states. Also, the statutory AJA 1920 and

FJA 1933 regimes, with their established criteria, are premised on reciprocity. As to the common law regime, there are

no readily available empirical studies demonstrating that judgments from other common-law English-speaking

countries are accorded greater deference. On the other hand, one can intuit that laws and procedures of other common-

law English-speaking countries are more easily understood, while laws and procedures from other countries require a

greater degree of explanation and potentially proof by expert or witness evidence.

Law stated - 21 July 2023

Alteration of awards

Will a court ever recognise only part of a judgment, or alter or limit the damage award?

The English courts can sever parts of judgments that are punitive as opposed to compensatory in nature, or contrary to

public policy, and enforce the remaining parts. Parts of judgments corresponding to punitive, exemplary or treble

damages, nes, penalties, taxes, etc, are unenforceable across the regimes. There are also express provisions for

severability of judgments. For example, article 48 of the Brussels Regulation expressly provides for severance of parts

of a judgment that cannot be enforced. Similarly, article 15 of the Hague Courts Convention 2005 expressly provides

for severability of a judgment where only a part of it is capable of recognition or enforcement.

Law stated - 21 July 2023

Effect of sanctions

What effect do foreign or domestic sanctions have on the enforcement of foreign judgments in

your jurisdiction? Will a court refuse enforcement of a judgment against or in favour of a

sanctioned entity or individual? If so, which sanctions regimes do the courts of your jurisdiction

recognise?

UK, US and European sanctions are being introduced regularly, particularly following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The

impact of sanctions on enforcement of foreign judgments is a constantly evolving area of law. Detailed analysis of the

sanctions regulations, their applicability, operative provisions and the denitions of ‘control’, is needed in each

particular case. In approaching the issue of sanctions in the context of the recognition and enforcement of foreign

judgments, it is necessary to keep in mind: whether the sanctioned person or entity is a judgment creditor or a

judgment debtor; whether it is a ‘designated’ person or entity subject to ‘blocking’ sanctions; what country issues

sanctions; and what body grants licences.

In PJSC National Bank Trust & Anor v Boris Mints & Ors [2023] EWHC 118 (Comm), the High Court recently claried

that sanctions do not prevent an English court from entering judgment on a pre-sanctions claim brought by the

Lexology GTDT - Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

www.lexology.com/gtdt 24/29

sanctioned person, and sanctions do not require a licence from the Oce of Financial Sanctions Implementation

(OFSI).

In Ministry of Defence and Support for Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran v International Military Services

Ltd [2019] 1 WLR 6409, the Iranian Ministry sought to enforce an arbitral award rendered in its favour in England. The

court enforced the award insofar as it was made before the imposition of sanctions but held that the interest accruing

since the imposition of sanctions could not be enforced. The sanctions were imposed by the EU, so the issue of

seeking a licence from OFSI did not arise.

Extending the courts’ reasoning to recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, one can suppose that sanctions

do not preclude the English court from recognising a foreign judgment representing a pre-sanctions debt due to the

sanctioned judgment creditor. However, diculties may arise at the stage of execution. In the opposite scenario,

sanctions should not become an obstacle to recognition of the foreign judgment against a sanctioned judgment

debtor. However, an OFSI licence may be needed to be able to proceed to execution against the assets of the

sanctioned judgment debtor.

Law stated - 21 July 2023

AWARDS AND SECURITY FOR APPEALS

Currency, interest, costs

In recognising a foreign judgment, does the court convert the damage award to local currency

and take into account such factors as interest and court costs and exchange controls? If interest

claims are allowed, which law governs the rate of interest?

Generally, a foreign judgment represents a debt that the judgment debtor owes to the judgment creditor. If the foreign

judgment is in foreign currency, then upon registration in England, it will remain in foreign currency. But if the judgment

fails to pay the amounts due pursuant to the judgment upon its registration in England in foreign currency, then the date

of conversion into pound sterling, for purposes of execution in England, would typically be the date when the judgment

creditor is given leave to levy execution ( Miliangos v George Frank Ltd [1977] QB 489).

If the foreign judgment provides for interest or carries such entitlement under foreign law, then such interest will be

recoverable, as part of the debt, in England upon judgment registration. But in the unlikely scenario where the foreign

judgment and foreign law are silent as to interest, it should be kept in mind that section 17 of the Judgment Act 1838

(FA 1838) and the Judgment Debts (Rate of Interest) Order 1993 provide for the standard simple interest rate of 8 per

cent, which applies to English judgments, potentially including English judgments entered on foreign debts.

If the foreign judgment provides for recovery of foreign court costs, then they will be recoverable, as part of the debt, in

England upon judgment registration. As far as the costs of the English registration proceedings are concerned, they will

be assessed in accordance with the usual English procedures.

Law stated - 21 July 2023

Security

Is there a right to appeal from a judgment recognising or enforcing a foreign judgment? If so,

what procedures, if any, are available to ensure the judgment will be enforceable against the

defendant if and when it is armed?

The conguration of appeal and the need to provide security for costs will depend on the regime under which the

foreign judgment is enforced and the applicable procedures.

Lexology GTDT - Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

www.lexology.com/gtdt 25/29



Common law

At common law, the process of recognition of a foreign judgment entails instituting new proceedings by which a

foreign debt is converted into an English judgment. The resulting English judgment will be subject to appeal by either

party under the usual English rules. Generally, under Part 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), appeal is not as of right

and requires permission from either the High Court or the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeal may order the

appellant (or cross-appellant) to provide security for costs as a precondition to pursuing the appeal in accordance with

the rules set out in Part 25 of the CPR. The relevant considerations include if:

the appellant is a non-resident;

there is reason to believe that the appellant-company will be unable to pay the respondent’s costs if so ordered;

the appellant failed to give their address in the claim form, gave an incorrect address or changed their address to

evade the consequences of the litigation; or

the appellant has taken steps to dissipate their assets, etc.



Statutory regimes

Under the Administration of Judgments Act 1920 (AJA 1920) and the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement)

Act 1933 (FJA 1933), an application for registration of foreign judgment may be made without notice to the judgment

debtor, according to Part 74 of the CPR. The judgment debtor can then apply to set aside the order registering the

foreign judgment within the time limit specied in the order. Thereafter, either party may seek permission to appeal the

order setting aside the registration (or not) pursuant to the usual English rules set out in Part 52 of the CPR.



Hague Court Convention 2005

The Hague Court Convention 2005, which is implemented through the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982

(CJJA 1982), permits application for registration without notice to the judgment debtor. The judgment debtor can then

apply to set aside the registration order.



European regime

The Brussels Recast Regulation provides for nearly automatic recognition of foreign judgments upon provision of

documents listed in article 42, according to Part 74 of the CPR. It is incumbent on the judgment debtor to make an

application for refusal of enforcement pursuant to articles 45 to 47. Article 49, to be read in conjunction with Parts 74

and 52 of the CPR, provides that the resulting decision may be appealed by either party.

Law stated - 21 July 2023

ENFORCEMENT AND PITFALLS

Enforcement process

Once a foreign judgment is recognised, what is the process for enforcing it in your jurisdiction?

Once a foreign judgment is recognised in England, it can be enforced in the same way as an English judgment.

Recognition gives the judgment creditor access to the full range of compulsive mechanisms available in the English

legal system. These methods include: disclosure orders compelling the judgment debtor or its banks to disclosure

Lexology GTDT - Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

www.lexology.com/gtdt 26/29

information about the judgment debtor’s nancial affairs; ‘gagging’ orders restraining the banks from divulging

information about the enforcement measures to the judgment debtor; worldwide freezing orders; charging orders

against bank accounts, immovable and movable property; and third-party debt (garnishment) orders requiring third

parties to pay to the judgment creditor the sums that they owe to the judgment debtor. These enforcement methods

are not limited to the territory of the UK and can be extraterritorial. Famous examples of deployment of English

enforcement measures include JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov and JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank and State

Corporation “Deposit Insurance Agency” v Pugachev in which extraterritorial disclosure orders (in combination with

contempt orders and gagging orders), search orders, worldwide freezing orders, charging orders over assets and

orders to sell assets were used.

Law stated - 21 July 2023

Pitfalls

What are the most common pitfalls in seeking recognition or enforcement of a foreign judgment

in your jurisdiction?

Foreign litigants aiming to recognise and enforce foreign judgments in England should ensure compliance with due

process or natural justice in the foreign proceedings, which fundamentally requires proper service on the defendant and

opportunity to be heard. Caution should be exercised with accelerating or taking shortcuts in the foreign proceedings.

Foreign litigants should amass proof of compliance with due process or natural justice for use in the English

recognition and enforcement proceedings, which will be particularly useful in case of default judgments.

Foreign litigants should also bear in mind that only compensatory as opposed to punitive parts of foreign judgments

are enforceable in England. Accordingly, they should either aim at a foreign judgment that only grants compensatory

relief or avoid ambiguity between the parts of the judgment that grant compensatory and non-compensatory relief, to

enable severability and enforceability of the compensatory part of the judgment in England.

Law stated - 21 July 2023

UPDATE AND TRENDS

Hot topics

Are there any emerging trends or hot topics in foreign judgment enforcement in your jurisdiction?

The UK jurisdiction has come into the spotlight following comparative studies on recognition and enforcement of

foreign judgments ( exequatur ) against foreign sovereigns. Unique features of the UK legal system make it possible to

overcome state immunity from the jurisdiction of English courts, under the tort exception in particular, even if the acts

or omissions occurred outside of the UK. To explain, the UK State Immunity Act 1978 (SIA 1978) , like similar statutes

in other countries, embodies the general principle that foreign states are immune from the jurisdiction of English

courts, unless one of the enumerated exceptions applies. The UK, unlike other countries, also has a procedural act, the

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (CJJA 1982) , which provides guidance as to how to apply SIA 1978 and its

exceptions from state immunity in the context of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments ( exequatur ).

Section 31(1) of CJJA 1982 provides that a foreign judgment against a foreign state shall be recognised and enforced

in the UK if and only if: it otherwise meets the requirements for recognition and enforcement, had it not been given

against a state; and the foreign court would have had jurisdiction, had it applied the exceptions from state immunity

corresponding to those in sections 2 to 11 of SIA 1978. Section 31(1) thus allows the English court to step into the

shoes of the foreign court rendering the judgment and presume that the facts occurred with its territory. NML v

Argentina [2011] UKSC 31 conrms the mutatis mutandis application of the exception from state immunity under

Lexology GTDT - Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

www.lexology.com/gtdt 27/29

section 31(1) and claries that it does not create an additional hurdle for state immunity, but rather a shortcut. Such

mutatis mutandis application of the exceptions from immunity, and particularly the tort exception, is unique. By

comparison to other countries, the absence of a territorial nexus with the forum renders the exceptions from immunity,

and particularly the tort exception, inapplicable, with the consequence of not being able to recognise and enforce a

foreign judgment against a foreign sovereign in that forum.

Heiser v Iran [2019] EWHC 2074 (QB) further claries that for a foreign judgment to be enforceable in the UK, there

must be correspondence (or equivalence) between the immunity exceptions applied by the foreign court and those

existing under SIA 1978. In that case, the English court essentially decided that: state immunity was not an obstacle

to enforcement of a US judgment in the UK, insofar as it relied on the ‘tort’ exception reected in both the US Foreign

Sovereign Immunities Act 1976 (FSIA 1976) and SIA 1979 (applicable to a shooting in New York); and state immunity

was an obstacle to enforcement of the US judgment in the UK, insofar as it relied on the ‘terrorism’ exception, which

was unique to the FSIA 1976 and did not exist under SIA 1978 (applicable to terrorist attacks in the Middle East).

Ultimately, the US judgment could not be enforced due to the diculties with establishing Iran’s presence within the US,

through an embassy in the absence of diplomatic relations between the countries, or otherwise in view of the

procedural and evidentiary particularities of that case.

The takeaway in the current geopolitical context is that the UK may be a promising jurisdiction for the recognition and

enforcement of foreign judgments against foreign sovereigns, pursuant to the combined application of SIA 1976 and

CJJA 1982.



* The author is most grateful to Daria Sakhno, associate in the London oce, for her helpful assistance with research.

Law stated - 21 July 2023

Lexology GTDT - Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

www.lexology.com/gtdt 28/29

Jurisdictions

Australia

Ironbridge Legal

Austria

WEBER & CO.

Bahrain

Charles Russell Speechlys

Egypt

Soliman, Hashish & Partners

France

Signature Litigation

Germany

Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP

Greece

PotamitisVekris

Iran

Dadamingo

Italy

Ughi e Nunziante

Japan

TMI Associates

Jordan

Hammouri & Partners

Nigeria

Streamsowers & Köhn

Switzerland

Walder Wyss Ltd

Turkey

Gün + Partners

United Arab Emirates

Charles Russell Speechlys

United Arab Emirates - Abu Dhabi

Charles Russell Speechlys

United Arab Emirates - DIFC

Charles Russell Speechlys

United Kingdom

Winston & Strawn LLP

USA

Freshelds Bruckhaus Deringer

Lexology GTDT - Enforcement of Foreign Judgments