England and Wales

England and Wales operates several different registration/enforcement regimes for foreign judgments, depending on the judgment’s origin and date.

UK regime. This relates to judgments originating from Scotland or Northern Ireland, which are separate jurisdictions from England and Wales. A certificate from the originating court must be registered in England, after which it has the same effect as an English judgment.

European regime. This relates to judgments from EU Member States and certain European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries. The European regime continues to govern the enforcement in the UK of judgments from courts in EU and EFTA states given in proceedings instituted before the end of the UK–EU Brexit transition period (31 December 2020). (Proceedings instituted from 1 January 2021 are governed instead by the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention regime, where it applies, or the common law regime.)

Statutory regime. This relates to judgments from most Commonwealth countries and certain others where there are applicable bilateral treaties. The applicable countries and key provisions are set out in:

• The Administration of Justice Act 1920, which applies to the recognition of judgments from most Commonwealth territories: the Bahamas, Barbados, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Jamaica, Malaysia, New Zealand, Nigeria, Singapore, Sri Lanka, and various small UK overseas territories.
• The Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933, which provides a system for the reciprocal recognition or enforcement of judgments from certain other Commonwealth countries and countries with which the UK has entered into bilateral treaties, including: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada (save for Quebec), France, Germany, Guernsey, India, the Isle of Man, Israel, Italy, Jersey, the Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Suriname, and Tonga.

Hague Convention regime. Where a foreign judgment is enforceable in England and Wales in accordance with the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention or the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention, the English court rules provide a procedure for registration and enforcement of the foreign judgment.

Common law regime. This applies to judgments from all countries, including those not covered by the other regimes.

What are the main international treaties or conventions that apply?

The two principal international conventions are:

• The 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention regime. This relates to judgments from the courts of states that are parties to the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention. Enforcement depends on the judgment having been given by a court exercising jurisdiction pursuant to an exclusive jurisdiction clause.
• The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention regime. This applies to judgments from the courts of states that are parties to the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention, which entered into force in the UK on 1 July 2025. For a judgment to be enforceable, it must satisfy at least one of the 13 jurisdictional criteria set out in Article 5 of the Convention. It permits enforcement of a significantly wider range of judgments than the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention, as it is not limited to judgments given pursuant to an exclusive jurisdiction clause.

What legal principles apply if there is no applicable international treaty or convention?

The common law regime applies to judgments from all countries, including those to which none of the other regimes above apply. However, reliance on the common law regime is precluded where the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 applies.

The principal requirements for recognising and enforcing a judgment, and the available defences, vary by framework.

Scope of regime

To be capable of registration and enforcement under a particular regime, the judgment must fall within its scope. The precise scope of the regimes varies. Money judgments are enforceable under all regimes (the statutory and common law regimes only cover money judgments), but otherwise:

• Judgments ordering or prohibiting the doing of acts or injunctions are enforceable under the European regime, 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention regime, and 2019 Hague Judgments Convention, but not under the statutory or common law regimes.
• Declaratory judgments are enforceable under the European regime, the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention regime, and the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention, but not under the statutory or common law regime (although they are recognised under the common law regime).
• Judgments granting provisional measures including those made without notice (ex parte) are enforceable only under the European regime (Recast Brussels Regulation).
• Under the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention and the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention regimes, non-money judgments are covered, but there are exclusions for family matters, wills and succession, and insolvency, as well as some other additional matters.

The following types of judgments tend to be excluded from enforcement:

• Judgments for non-compensatory damages (in particular, punitive or multiple damages).
• Judgments relating to tax.

Further, the Hague Conventions have more extensive exclusions that limit their applicability.

Conditions for recognition/available defences

The conditions for recognition of a judgment, and available defences, vary depending on the applicable framework. Note that the requirements in respect of the jurisdiction of the court that granted judgment are addressed in a separate section below.

European regime. In summary, the conditions for recognition/available defences are:

• the judgment must be compatible with public policy, although this requirement is construed narrowly;
• the judgment must not conflict with any existing domestic judgments between the parties or a prior judgment in another Member State or third state;
• the judgment must be enforceable in the originating court;
• the judgment will not be capable of recognition if it is covered by certain agreements with third-party states not to recognise particular types of judgments against their domiciliaries; and
• enforcement may be refused if the defendant did not have the opportunity to defend the proceedings.

Statutory regime. The conditions for recognition/available defences are:

• the judgment must be compatible with public policy;
• the judgment must not conflict with any existing domestic or foreign judgments;
• the judgment must be final as to its effects;
• the judgment must not have been obtained by fraud (there are subtle distinctions between precisely what this means under the Administration of Justice Act and the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act);
• the judgment must not have already been wholly satisfied;
• the judgment must not be incapable of enforcement by execution in the country of origin;
• the judgment must not be a fine or penalty; and
• enforcement may be refused if the debtor was not duly served with the process of the original court and did not appear.

2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention. The conditions for recognition/possible defences are:

• the judgment must have been given by the court of the contracting state designated in an exclusive jurisdiction clause entered into between the parties (provided that clause is not null and void under the law of the contracting state designated in the clause);
• the judgment must not have been obtained by fraud;
• the judgment must be compatible with public policy;
• there should be no inconsistency with another judgment between the same parties, or with an earlier judgment in another state; and
• enforcement may be refused if the debtor was not duly served with the process of the original court and did not appear; or the debtor did not have due notice of the original proceedings.

2019 Hague Judgments Convention. The conditions for recognition/possible defences are:

• the judgment must satisfy at least one of the requirements contained in Article 5 of the Convention, sometimes referred to as the “jurisdictional filters”;
• the judgment must not have been obtained by fraud;
• the judgment must be compatible with public policy;
• there should be no inconsistency with another judgment between the same parties, or with an earlier judgment in another state;
• the proceedings in the court of origin must not have been issued in contravention of a jurisdiction agreement in favour of the courts of another state; and
• enforcement may be refused if the debtor was not duly served with the process of the original court and did not appear; or the debtor did not have due notice of the original proceedings.

Common law regime. The conditions for recognition/possible defences are:

• the judgment must be compatible with public policy and principles of natural justice;
• the judgment must not conflict with any existing domestic or foreign judgments between the parties;
• the judgment must be final as to its effects;
• the judgment must not have been obtained by fraud;
• the judgment must not contravene the Human Rights Act 1998;
• the judgment must not be for multiple damages, a fine or a penalty; and
• a judgment is not enforceable if the foreign court’s procedures breached the rules of natural justice. Generally, this requires due notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Time limits

Applicable time limits for recognition/enforcement vary according to the enforcement regime.

European regime. A judgment is enforceable in the UK if it would be enforceable in the originating court (Article 41(1), Recast Brussels Regulation). The limitation period therefore mirrors that of the foreign court.

2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention and 2019 Hague Judgments Convention. A judgment can be enforced only if it is enforceable in the originating court (Article 8(3) 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention; Article 4(3) 2019 Hague Judgments Convention). However, recognition or enforcement may be postponed or refused if the judgment is the subject of review in the state of origin or if the time limit for seeking ordinary review has not expired. A refusal does not prevent a subsequent application for recognition or enforcement.

Statutory regime. An application for registration under the Administration of Justice Act 1920 must be made within 12 months from the date of the foreign judgment, although this can be extended (section 9, Administration of Justice Act 1920). Under section 2 of the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933, the limitation period is six years from the date of the foreign judgment.

Common law regime. The limitation period is six years from the date of the foreign judgment (section 24(1), Limitation Act 1980).

Requirements for service

There are no specific requirements for service of the originating proceedings under any of the regimes, but in general terms, in order for a judgment to be recognised, the judgment debtor should have been duly served with the originating proceedings and/or notified in time to arrange their defence (as set out above under “Conditions for enforcement/available defences”).

Jurisdiction requirements

Requirements relating to the originating court’s jurisdiction vary according to the applicable regime.

European regime. The enforcing court can only consider the jurisdiction of the foreign court on the application of a party and to the extent that the judgment conflicts with:

• The rules determining jurisdiction for insurance, consumer, or employment matters (in relation to the Recast Brussels Regulation only) (Article 45(1)(e), Recast Brussels Regulation).
• The rules giving exclusive jurisdiction to a particular Member State where the proceedings involve matters such as immovable property; the constitution of companies; and entries in public registers or the validity of certain intellectual property (IP) rights (Article 45(1)(e), Recast Brussels Regulation).
• A contractual arbitration clause (Article 1(2)(d), Recast Brussels Regulation).

Statutory regime. A foreign judgment is only enforceable under the statutory regime if the foreign court had international jurisdiction according to English private international law principles. The court will apply English conflicts of laws principles, embodied in section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act and section 4 of the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, to determine whether the foreign court had jurisdiction. The court will refuse to enforce a judgment if the foreign court assumed jurisdiction contrary to a contractual jurisdiction or arbitration agreement (section 32, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act, 1982).

2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention regime. A foreign judgment is only enforceable under the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention regime if made by the court of the contracting state which was named in a valid exclusive jurisdiction agreement entered into between the parties. There does not need to be any other connection with the contracting state named in the agreement. The enforcing court will generally be bound by the findings of fact on which the court that made the judgment based its jurisdiction.

2019 Hague Judgments Convention regime. A foreign judgment of a contracting state is enforceable under the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention, provided that at least one of the jurisdictional criteria in Article 5 of the Convention is satisfied. The basis on which the judgment court actually assumed jurisdiction over the dispute is generally irrelevant.  The enforcing court cannot go behind the findings of fact that the originating court relied upon to establish its jurisdiction.

Common law regime. A foreign judgment is only enforceable under the common law regime if the foreign court had international jurisdiction according to English private international law principles.

New York Convention. The UK is a signatory to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958, known as the New York Convention (NYC), which provides for the recognition and enforcement of international arbitration awards in contracting states. Over 170 countries are signatories to the NYC. The NYC imposes a general obligation on contracting states to recognise arbitral awards and to enforce them pursuant to their national laws and procedure. It provides only limited grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement.

Geneva Convention. A few countries are not signatories to the NYC, but are signatories to the Geneva Convention on the Execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1927. Awards made in those territories may still be enforced by the English court, but different conditions of enforcement apply.

Arbitration Act 1996, section 66. An award creditor also has a right to apply to the Court to enforce a domestic or foreign arbitral award under section 66 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

Common law. A creditor also has a right to enforce an arbitral award, as a debt, under common law.

The procedure for recognition and enforcement depends on which regime applies.

As a preliminary point, applicants are not formally required to appoint lawyers to file an application to register a foreign judgment or to commence new proceedings. However, appointing English lawyers is necessary in practice, as foreign lawyers are not entitled to conduct litigation in England. If a court hearing is required, the applicant may need to appoint either a barrister or a solicitor with higher rights of audience to conduct the advocacy.

European regime, 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention, 2019 Hague Judgments Convention, and statutory regime. If the Recast Brussels Regulation applies, the judgments of other Member States are automatically enforceable (without registration), but enforcement can be challenged.

Where an application for registration for a judgment is required under the European regime (other than the Recast Brussels Regulation), the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention, the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention, or the statutory regime, the application can be made without notice and can be dealt with by a High Court “Master” rather than a High Court Judge. It is usually possible to have this application decided within one to two weeks. However, actual execution against assets cannot proceed until the time for challenging registration has expired, or any challenge has been determined. This can take several months (particularly where service must be made outside the jurisdiction).

Common law regime. The process under the common law regime takes longer. New proceedings must be filed and served on the judgment debtor, which can take several months if they are outside the jurisdiction. However, a claim based on a foreign judgment can usually be disposed of by an expedited “summary judgment” procedure, rather than going to full trial, since the court will not reopen the substance of the dispute.

Arbitration awards. An application for permission to enforce an award is made without notice in an arbitration claim form, supported by evidence. After considering the application, the court may require that the claim form be served on the other party, but normally it will grant the initial ex parte order granting permission to enforce. Once the initial ex parte order has been granted, it must be served (which may cause delay), and the judgment debtor must make any challenge to the order within 14 days of service or, if the order is to be served out of the jurisdiction, within such other period as the court may specify.

The award must not be enforced until after the end of that period for challenging the order, or until any application made by the defendant within that period has been finally determined.

Fees. The current court fee for an application to register a judgment or for permission to enforce an arbitral award in the High Court is GBP 80. If the common law regime applies, and new proceedings need to be issued, the current court fee for issuing a claim depends on the value of the claim (for claims above GBP 10,000, the court fee is 5% of the amount being claimed, up to a maximum of GBP 10,000). Fees are reviewed regularly; always check the current position.

The process for appeal varies depending on the applicable regime.

European regime. If the Recast Brussels Regulation applies, the foreign judgment is automatically enforceable. There is no specific time limit for challenging enforcement, but a judgment debtor must challenge the enforceability of the foreign judgment at the time that any steps are taken to enforce against its assets, otherwise enforcement will proceed.

If the Recast Brussels Regulation does not apply, and the foreign judgment must be registered before it is enforceable, the judgment debtor has one month from service of the order of the enforcing court to appeal that registration (or two months if it is based outside the jurisdiction of the enforcing court).

Statutory regime. If the statutory regime applies, the judgment debtor can apply to have the ex parte registration of the judgment set aside within the period specified in the order of the court registering the judgment.

2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention regime. A judgment debtor can apply to set aside the granting of registration of the foreign judgment within the period specified in the order granting registration (section 6B, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982).

2019 Hague Judgments Convention regime. A judgment debtor can apply to set aside the granting of registration of the foreign judgment within the period specified in the order granting registration (section 6C, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982).

Common law regime. As fresh proceedings are required to obtain a free-standing judgment in England and Wales, a judgment under the common law regime is subject to appeal in the same manner as an English judgment. The court’s permission is required to appeal that judgment to a higher court, and this will only be granted if the court considers that the appeal has a real prospect of success.

Arbitration award. In the case of an arbitration award, the defendant will have the right to apply to set aside the ex parte order granting permission to enforce. They may also wish to seek an adjournment of the application to enforce or, more likely, a stay of the order granting permission to enforce the award. Alternatively, they may seek a stay of the enforcement of the award itself.

A judgment creditor can obtain an order compelling the provision of information by a judgment debtor for the purposes of enabling the judgment creditor to enforce a judgment or order against them, pursuant to CPR Part 71.

The court may also grant an order requiring the provision of an affidavit of assets in appropriate circumstances.

Failure to comply with an order of this kind can amount to contempt of court and is punishable by a fine, imprisonment, confiscation of assets, or other punishment.

Whichever enforcement regime applies, it is possible to apply for urgent provisional or protective measures from the court in support of enforcement. These include freezing orders, asset preservation orders, and receivership orders, which have the effect of preventing a person from dealing with or dissipating assets, and can potentially extend to assets located anywhere in the world.

In general terms, when enforcing a foreign judgment (rather than a domestic judgment), the English court will not grant interim relief in respect of foreign assets unless there is a sufficient connection with the UK; for example, because the judgment debtor is domiciled in the UK. However, advice should be sought when determining the legal place or situs of an asset, as this is not always obvious.

Various methods are available to enforce a money judgment against different types of assets. These are listed in Practice Direction 70A.1.1–1.2. A judgment creditor can generally use any method available (and several methods can be used simultaneously or sequentially).

Bank accounts

A third-party debt order allows sums owed to a judgment debtor that are in the hands of a third party (for instance, a bank) to be frozen and seized for the benefit of the judgment creditor.

Shares

A charging order allows a creditor to make a claim on the judgment debtor’s assets (such as land or securities), up to the value of the judgment debt, with interest and costs.

Debts due to the judgment debtor from third parties

A third-party debt order also allows a judgment creditor to collect the debt from a third party debtor of the judgment debtor, where specific criteria are met. Where these criteria are not met, it may be possible to appoint a receiver to collect the revenues.

Real estate

A charging order allows a creditor to secure a judgment debt by imposing a charge over a judgment debtor’s beneficial interest in land or securities. It prevents the debtor from selling the land without paying what is owed to the creditor.

Movable property

A writ or warrant of control can be used to take control of a judgment debtor’s goods in order to raise funds to satisfy a judgment debt.

In general terms, whether an asset can be enforced against will depend on the beneficial rather than legal ownership of the asset. However, some enforcement procedures may not be available where the judgment debtor is not the legal owner of the asset.

A charging order may be made against land, securities or funds held in court that are beneficially owned by the judgment debtor. However, the applicant for a charging order must explain to the court the basis for their contention that the debtor has a beneficial interest in the relevant property.

Where other enforcement methods are unavailable, the court also has the power to appoint a receiver by way of equitable execution. This involves appointing a receiver to manage a judgment debtor’s assets and collect income to satisfy a debt, and this can extend to assets in which the judgment debtor only has a beneficial or partial interest.

In general terms, the fact that a judgment debtor has only a partial interest in an asset will not prevent enforcement against its interest in that asset. However, this may impact on the procedural approach to enforcement. When an issue arises as to the true ownership of an asset, this will be determined based on a full consideration of the evidence before the enforcement procedure can be finalised. The judgment creditor will not be able to exercise any rights over the property that are greater than the rights enjoyed by the judgment debtor unless there is some legal basis for setting aside rights that have been granted to a third party.

For example, a writ or warrant of control can be used to seize and sell goods co-owned by the judgment debtor and a third party (although the third party has the ability to make a claim to the proceeds of sale).

The court also has the power to make a charging order against the share of a property or securities held by a debtor where a property is co-owned.