Cross-border enforcement and foreign judgments: a practical guide

Recognition is not the same as execution

A foreign judgment may determine rights between parties, but it does not automatically operate as an English judgment against assets in England and Wales. The creditor must identify the applicable recognition or enforcement route and complete the required procedure before using ordinary execution methods. Recognition may also arise defensively, for example through cause-of-action or issue estoppel, without immediate execution.

The analysis should begin before judgment if possible. Choice-of-court clauses, the defendant's participation, service, the relief sought and the location of assets can affect enforceability. A judgment that is easy to obtain but difficult to export may have less practical value than proceedings in the place where the assets or debtor are found.

Seven questions to answer first

1. Which court gave the judgment, and which state or territory is legally treated as its origin?
2. Is it civil or commercial, final and conclusive, enforceable in the state of origin and for a definite sum or other qualifying relief?
3. Did the originating court have jurisdiction recognised by the applicable English regime?
4. Was the debtor served and given a proper opportunity to participate?
5. Is an appeal pending, and has enforcement been stayed or suspended?
6. Which convention, statute or common-law route applies on the relevant dates?
7. What assets, debts, shares, land, income or insolvency processes in England and Wales can produce an actual recovery?

Hague 2019: the new general convention route

The 2019 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters entered into force for the United Kingdom on 1 July 2025. Where it applies between the United Kingdom and the state of origin, it provides common rules requiring recognition and enforcement of qualifying judgments, subject to its scope, jurisdictional filters and grounds for refusal.

The Convention does not cover every judgment or every country. It contains exclusions, including specified family, insolvency, arbitration, intellectual-property and public-law matters. Its temporal operation must also be checked: the Convention's relationship between the relevant states and the date proceedings were instituted can determine whether it applies. The current contracting-state position should therefore be verified for each case.

Ministry of Justice statement on Hague 2019 → · UK implementing Regulations →

Exclusive choice-of-court agreements and Hague 2005

The 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention may govern where the parties concluded a qualifying exclusive choice-of-court agreement in favour of a court of a contracting state. It supports the chosen court's jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of its resulting judgment, subject to defined exclusions and refusal grounds.

The agreement's wording, date, commercial context and exclusivity require careful analysis. Asymmetric clauses and disputes falling outside the scope of the clause or Convention can create difficult questions. Where Hague 2005 applies, it may provide a more specific route than Hague 2019.

Reciprocal statutory registration

The Administration of Justice Act 1920 and the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 provide registration routes for judgments from designated countries and courts. The relevant statutory instrument and territorial designation must be checked rather than inferred from historic or political connections.

Registration is generally obtained by application supported by authenticated judgment material and evidence addressing enforceability, service, interest, satisfaction and any appeal. The debtor may apply to set registration aside on the statutory grounds. Time limits differ between regimes and should be checked immediately.

CPR Part 74: enforcement of foreign judgments → · Practice Direction 74A →

Enforcement at common law

If no convention or registration regime applies, a creditor may be able to bring an English claim on the obligation created by a qualifying foreign judgment. The judgment ordinarily must be final and conclusive, for a debt or definite sum of money, and given by a court treated as having jurisdiction under English conflict-of-laws rules. Taxes, penalties and other sovereign claims raise separate restrictions.

The action is a new English claim based on the judgment obligation; it is not direct execution of the foreign order. Summary judgment may be sought where no defence has a real prospect of success, but jurisdiction, service out and the evidence proving the foreign judgment must still be addressed.

Grounds for resisting recognition or enforcement

The precise defences depend on the applicable regime. Recurring issues include lack of recognised jurisdiction, defective notice, judgment obtained by fraud, public policy, inconsistency with another judgment, breach of a qualifying jurisdiction agreement, non-finality or suspension in the state of origin, and matters outside the relevant statute or convention.

The English court does not ordinarily rehear the merits simply because it might have decided the dispute differently. A debtor should identify a recognised defence and the evidence supporting it. A creditor should anticipate those objections in the first application, particularly where relief is sought without notice.

Interim protection while recognition is pursued

Assets may move while a registration or common-law claim is pending. Depending on jurisdiction and evidence, a creditor may consider a freezing injunction, proprietary relief, disclosure or an order preserving specific property. Existing foreign orders and asset disclosure can be relevant, but an English application must satisfy the applicable English tests and safeguards.

Any without-notice application requires full and frank disclosure. The creditor must explain the foreign proceedings, possible defences, asset evidence, risk of dissipation, territorial reach and interaction with orders elsewhere. Parallel applications should be coordinated with foreign counsel to avoid inconsistency or overreach.

From an English judgment to actual recovery

Once the foreign judgment is registered or an English judgment is obtained at common law, the creditor must choose an enforcement method suited to the asset. Options may include charging orders over land or securities, third-party debt orders, writs or warrants of control, orders for sale, attachment of earnings, receivership, information orders and insolvency proceedings.

Each method has distinct ownership, priority, notice and cost questions. Assets held through companies, trusts or nominees are not automatically the debtor's assets. Enforcement planning should consider secured creditors, co-ownership, prior dispositions, exemptions, currency conversion, interest and whether a negotiated payment or security package would produce a better net result.

Foreign judgments and insolvency proceedings

The relationship between recognition and insolvency requires particular care. In Drelle v Servis-Terminal LLC [2026] UKSC 29, the Supreme Court held that a qualifying unrecognised and unregistrable foreign money judgment gives rise at common law to an immediate obligation to pay capable of constituting a debt under section 267 of the Insolvency Act 1986. That conclusion does not give the foreign judgment direct status as an English judgment for ordinary execution.

The Court distinguished unregistrable judgments from judgments that are registrable under the 1933 Act but have not been registered. It also remitted outstanding grounds concerning whether the debt was disputed on bona fide and substantial grounds. The regime and the nature of the intended insolvency step must therefore be analysed precisely.

Read Case Digest No. 28, the official judgment and hearing archive →

Immovable property, sovereignty and recognition limits

Cross-border insolvency and enforcement can be constrained by the treatment of land and other immovable property. English common law ordinarily gives special significance to the law and courts of the place where land is situated. Foreign insolvency orders do not necessarily transfer or control English immovables merely because the debtor's bankruptcy is recognised.

The Supreme Court's decision in Kireeva v Bedzhamov [2024] UKSC 39 and the Commercial Court's analysis in Beograd Innovation Ltd v Somovidis [2025] EWHC 1182 (Comm) illustrate the need to distinguish recognition of status from proprietary effect and enforcement against local assets.

Read Case Digest No. 1: foreign bankruptcy and English immovables → · Read Case Digest No. 9: sovereignty and foreign bankruptcy →

Enforcing English judgments abroad

Outbound enforcement begins with local law in the destination state. The creditor should obtain the sealed judgment, finality or enforceability certificates, evidence of service, interest calculation and translations or legalisation required there. Hague 2005, Hague 2019, bilateral arrangements or the destination's domestic law may govern recognition.

Local advice should be obtained early on limitation, interim measures, debtor examination, asset registers, appeals and insolvency. The English pleading and order can sometimes be framed to improve exportability, but only if enforcement planning occurs before judgment.

Alexander's relevant experience

Alexander's practice includes English, offshore and international commercial disputes, cross-border insolvency, foreign judgments and asset recovery. He was called in England and Wales in 2000 and has also practised from the Turks and Caicos Islands, Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands, giving him direct experience of coordinating proceedings and legal teams across common-law jurisdictions.

He appeared in the Court of Appeal proceedings connected with Servis-Terminal LLC v Drelle, and has acted as sole counsel in BVI liquidation and DIFC recognition work arising from an alleged US$300 million Ponzi scheme. His wider work includes foreign-law and jurisdiction issues, offshore shareholder litigation, international fraud and enforcement considerations. The site distinguishes those appearances from judgments analysed only in the research library.

Explore cross-border and offshore expertise · View Servis-Terminal v Drelle and Alexander's role · View the FCI Markets matter summary

Routes to instruction

UK and overseas solicitors, insolvency practitioners, businesses, creditors and judgment debtors may instruct Alexander through Enterprise Chambers in London, Leeds and Bristol. Public Access enquiries are considered where suitable, but cross-border cases commonly require coordination with solicitors and local foreign counsel.

Professional instructions · Public Access · Contact and clerking routes