On 1 July 2025, the Hague Judgments Convention came into force in the UK, applying to proceedings commenced after that date. Its objective is to streamline the global recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, enhancing access to justice and the confidence of litigants in the dispute resolution process.
What is the Hague Judgments Convention?
The full text of the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters dated 2 July 2019 (the "Convention") can be found here.
The Convention provides a minimum framework for the recognition and enforcement of civil or commercial foreign judgments internationally between contracting states, which includes EU member states, except Denmark, and others. The current position with respect to ratifications and accessions of those states which have signed up to the Convention can be found here.
The minimum framework provides a base level for the circulation of foreign judgments, allowing states to make their own provisions above that base level, without preventing the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments under national law (except for rights in rem in immovable property).
The Convention entered into force for the UK on 1 July 2025 and applies to judgments given in proceedings commenced after this date.
To enable the operation of the Convention in the UK, amendments were required to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 ("CJJA 1982"). The Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments (2019 Hague Convention etc) Regulations 2024/713 came into force on 1 July 2025 and amended the CJJA 1982 to incorporate the Convention into UK law.
The Hague Judgments Convention: Civil Procedure (Amendment No 2) Rules 2024 (SI 2024/595) alsocame into force on 1 July 2025 and updated CPR 74 to introduce a registration model and procedure for challenging registration by applying to have it set aside. The 168th Practice Direction Update came into force on the same date and extended PD 74A to cover enforcement of judgments under the Convention, including requiring those seeking enforcement under the Convention to use a certificate in the form recommended and published by the HCCH, as found on the HCCH website.
What is the purpose of the Convention?
The aims of the Convention are set out in its Explanatory Report and are to:
- enhance the practical effectiveness of judgments to which the Convention applies, by ensuring they are recognised and enforced in all contracting states;
- enable successful parties to a dispute to obtain meaningful relief with more certainty;
- reduce duplicative proceedings by removing the need to re-litigate the merits of a claim decided by another contracting state's courts;
- reduce the costs and timeframes of obtaining recognition and enforcement of a judgment;
- make it easier to ascertain the circumstances in which a judgment will be recognised and enforced in other contracting states; and
- enable claimants to make an informed choice about where to bring their proceedings, considering their ability to enforce the resulting judgment in other contracting states.
A simplified common framework for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is also essential to facilitate cross-border trade and investment and promote effective access to justice, by reducing the costs and risks associated with cross-border dealings.
When does the Convention apply?
Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention concern its scope and exclusions.
The Convention applies to the recognition and enforcement in one contracting state of a judgment in civil and commercial matters made in another contracting state. The nature of the parties (legal or natural persons, private or public) does not affect the application of the Convention, including if a state or government agency is a party to the proceedings.
The following are examples of matters excluded from the broad scope of the Convention:
- revenue, customs or administrative matters;
- matters already covered by specialised treaties, such as family and certain maritime matters;
- matters which are treated inconsistently between legal systems, such as insolvency, intellectual property and certain competition law matters; and
- arbitral awards and related arbitral proceedings.
Contracting parties may also declare under Article 18(1) that the Convention does not apply to other specific matters.
Note that a judgment is not excluded from the scope of the Convention solely because a matter which is excluded from scope was dealt with as a preliminary question in the proceedings in which the judgment was given, and not as an object of those proceedings. The Explanatory Report gives guidance on this distinction. "Preliminary questions are legal issues that must be addressed before the plaintiff's claim can be decided but which are not the main object or principal issue of the proceedings." Preliminary questions are usually introduced by way of defence and the question of whether the final judgment depends on the answer to the preliminary question may arise even when the answer to the preliminary question does not form part of the final judgment.
What is a 'Civil or Commercial matter'?
The Explanatory Report states that "Whether a judgment relates to civil or commercial matters is determined by the nature of the claim or action that is the subject of the judgment."
What is a 'Judgment' for these purposes?
Article 3 of the Convention defines 'Judgment' as "any decision on the merits given by a court, whatever that decision may be called, including a decree or order, and a determination of costs or expenses of the proceedings by the court (including an officer of the court), provided that the determination relates to a decision on the merits which may be recognised or enforced under this Convention. An interim measure of protection is not a judgment."
The Article Commentary in the Explanatory Report further considers what a 'decision on the merits' is. It implies "some kind of contentious judicial proceedings" disposed of by a court (or through judicial settlement – see Article 11 – to be distinguished from a consent order/judgment which is governed by Article 4) and can include money and non-money judgments (such as an injunction or order for specific performance of a contract), judgments given by default and judgments in collective actions. Conversely, procedural rulings, such as orders for the disclosure of documents or the hearing of a witness, are excluded from the definition.
Recognition & Enforcement
Article 4 of the Convention creates the obligation between states of mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments.
Judgments must have effect in their state of origin to be recognised and can only be enforced if also enforceable in their state of origin. Otherwise, recognition or enforcement may only be refused on the grounds specified in the Convention, so a contracting state cannot decline recognition or enforcement on other grounds under national law.
A judgment can, however, be postponed or refused if it is the subject of review in the origin state or the time limit for seeking review has not yet expired. Although, a refusal does not prevent a party from subsequently reapplying for recognition or enforcement.
Note that a judgment given by a court in a contracting state must be recognised and enforced without a review of the merits of the decision taking place, such that enforcement proceedings cannot be used by a party to re-open the substance of a dispute which has already been decided.
Articles 5 and 6 set out when a judgment is eligible for recognition and enforcement. These bases are termed 'jurisdictional filters'. Article 6 is an exclusive filter regarding rights in rem in immovable property, whilst Article 5 provides an exhaustive, but lengthy, non-hierarchical list of 13 filters, which each individually trigger the mutual recognition obligations. Under Articles 15 and 23 states are still able to recognise foreign judgments based on other filters under their own national law, bilateral, regional or other international instruments, with the exception of Article 6. The Convention is therefore a floor, rather than a ceiling, for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.
The bases are concerned with either (i) a connection between the state of origin and the person objecting to recognition or enforcement, (ii) a connection established by consent, or (iii) a connection between the state of origin and the subject matter of the original proceedings.
The jurisdictional filters in the Convention are considerably broader than those at common law allowing a wider range of judgments to be eligible for recognition and enforcement under the Convention. The bases are not copied out in full here but include, by way of example, that (i) the person against whom recognition or enforcement is sought is the original claimant, (ii) the original defendant was habitually resident in the origin state when those proceedings were brought, or (iii) the original defendant expressly consented to the court of origin's jurisdiction.
Note that where a judgment is given against multiple parties, the jurisdiction filters in Article 5 must be assessed for each party individually. For example, if a judgment is given against three jointly and severally liable defendants, the fact that one of them was habitually resident in the state of origin is not sufficient for the other two co-defendants to be considered resident, meaning the judgment would not be eligible for recognition and enforcement against the other two co-defendants unless another filter was satisfied.
Grounds for refusal
Article 7 of the Convention provides an optional list to contracting states to impose, by way of domestic legislation, less restrictive conditions for the refusal of recognition or enforcement of foreign judgments generally, or in relation to specific states or fields. The grounds for refusal include errors in service of the original claim, fraud in obtaining the judgment and reasons of public policy or inconsistency of decisions.
Recognition or enforcement may also be postponed or refused if the same parties have brought proceedings on the same subject matter in the requested state which were first seised there and there is a close connection between the dispute and the requested state. Albeit this does not prevent a subsequent application being made at a later date.
Practical application of the Convention on recognising and enforcing foreign judgments in the UK
Documents to be provided under the Convention
A party that is seeking recognition or applying for enforcement under the Convention must produce the documents set out under Article 12 of the Convention, set out below:
- a complete and certified copy of the judgment, which includes the court's reasoning and not just the final order;
- if the judgment was given by default, the original or a certified copy of a document establishing that the document which instituted the proceedings, or an equivalent document, was notified to the defaulting party;
- any documents necessary to establish that the judgment has effect or, where applicable, is enforceable in the state of origin;
- in the case of judicial settlements, a certificate of a court of the origin state stating that the judicial settlement, or a part of it, is enforceable in the same manner as a judgment in the origin state; and
- such documents the requested court may require to verify whether the Convention has been complied with.
As set out above, under PD 74A, an application in the UK must be accompanied by the form recommended and published by the HCCH. This form provides for the judicial settlements documentation at (d) above and negates the need for the certificate referred to there.
If the documents to be provided are not in an official language of the requested state, they must be accompanied by a certified translation, unless the law of the requested state provides otherwise.
If the party seeking recognition or applying for enforcement fails to produce the required documents, it is the law of the requested state which determines the consequences of this. However excessive formalism is advised to be avoided, and omissions should be allowed to be rectified where the judgment debtor has not been prejudiced.
Enforcement in England and Wales of Judgments of foreign courts
Registration of the judgment
Section 4C CJJA 1982 requires a foreign judgment to be registered to be recognised and enforced under the Convention.
Applications for registration must be made under Part 23, accompanied by the evidence in support set out under CPR 74.4, to the High Court, which must register the judgment without delay if it considers that the documents required by Article 12 of the Convention have been produced and evidence has been provided that the foreign judgment has met the following requirements:
- it is enforceable in the state of origin (per Article 4(3) of the Convention);
- it meets at least one of the bases for recognition and enforcement in Articles 5 or 6 of the Convention; and
- it otherwise meets the requirements for recognition or enforcement under the Convention.
The application is to be non-contentious and the party against whom enforcement is sought will not be able to make any submissions.
The court will not consider any discretionary grounds to refuse recognition or enforcement, or permit postponement at the registration stage, and as such there is no requirement for the applicant to provide any information on this point up front.
Evidence required in support of the application varies under CPR 74.10 depending on whether the applicant is applying for the purposes of recognition and enforcement, or recognition only.
Application to set aside registration
Section 6C CJJA 1982 gives both parties the right to apply to challenge the registration decision before it is enforced.
Applications to challenge registration must be made under Part 23 to the High Court, within the time-period set out in the registration order (subject to an application for an extension of time in accordance with CPR 74.7(2)).
The court must refuse to register the judgment if the requirements for registration set out above are not met and may also refuse to register the judgment if it is satisfied that one or more of the grounds for refusal or postponement of recognition or enforcement of a judgment specified in the Convention applies.
Enforcement in foreign countries of Judgments of the High Court and County Court
A judgment creditor who wishes to enforce in a foreign country a judgment obtained in the High Court or County Court must apply for a certified copy of the judgment under CPR 74.12, providing the evidence in support set out under CPR 74.13.
Impact of the Convention
Whilst the Convention does not go as far as harmonising the law of jurisdiction and relates only to civil and commercial matters, in the words of the HCCH's Secretary General, Dr Bernasconi, it "is undoubtedly a true "gamechanger" for cross-border dispute resolution".
Prior to the Convention coming into force, foreign judgments were only enforceable in England under the common law or statutory regimes in place if the court of the origin state had jurisdiction on a consensual or territorial basis. The number of foreign judgments now eligible for recognition and enforcement in England has therefore widely increased under the Convention.
It is hoped that as more countries adopt the Convention, it will provide a streamlined global mechanism for a substantial number of judgments to be recognised and enforced, filling a gap in the current framework and enhancing global access to justice, whilst creating certainty and predictability in international transactions and litigation, allowing plaintiffs to make informed decisions as to where to initiate proceedings.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.