Enforcing an English court judgment in Portugal following Brexit is more complex than it was under the EU's Mutual Recognition framework, and the path forward depends heavily on when the underlying proceedings were commenced and whether a relevant convention applies. As matters currently stand, UK judgments in proceedings instituted before 1 July 2025 fall outside both the Brussels Recast Regulation and the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention, leaving creditors to navigate Portugal's national exequatur process or, in narrow circumstances, the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. Understanding this landscape before committing to an enforcement strategy can make a material difference to timelines and cost.
Background: The Illustrative Scenario
The situation described below is an illustrative scenario constructed from patterns common to cross-border debt recovery matters handled after Brexit. It does not represent a specific client, a specific judgment sum, or a confirmed outcome. Names, amounts and identifying details are fictional. It is presented to map the procedural and strategic terrain that practitioners and commercial parties actually encounter.
The scenario involves a UK-registered trading company ("the Creditor") holding a final, uncontested judgment from the High Court of England and Wales against a Portuguese-registered counterparty ("the Debtor"). The judgment arose from an unpaid invoice dispute relating to the supply of specialist industrial equipment. The Debtor had ceased voluntary communication, held real property in the Lisbon metropolitan area and maintained accounts with a Portuguese bank. The underlying proceedings were commenced and concluded before 1 July 2025.
The Creditor's in-house team initially assumed that a UK judgment, being from a common law court of demonstrable standing, would be recognised in Portugal on relatively straightforward terms. That assumption proved incorrect.
The Legal Landscape After Brexit: Why the Route Matters
Until 31 December 2020, the Brussels Recast Regulation (No 1215/2012) governed the mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments between EU Member States and the UK. Brexit removed the UK from that framework entirely. There is no bilateral UK–Portugal treaty on reciprocal judgment enforcement that substitutes for it.
Two convention-based routes exist, but each carries conditions that must be assessed carefully:
- Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005: This applies where the original contract contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of an English court. Both the UK (re-acceded in its own right) and the EU (including Portugal) are parties. Where the clause meets the definition of exclusivity under the Convention, the Portuguese court must, in principle, recognise and enforce the judgment. However, the contract in the illustrative scenario contained a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause, so this route was unavailable.
- Hague Judgments Convention 2019: This Convention entered into force for EU Member States (with the exception of Denmark) and for several other states. Crucially, it enters into force for the United Kingdom from 1 July 2025 – but only with respect to proceedings instituted after that date between states where the Convention is mutually in force. Because the proceedings in this scenario were commenced and resolved before 1 July 2025, the 2019 Convention provides no basis for enforcement here.
For the scenario described, neither convention applied. The only available mechanism was Portugal's national exequatur procedure before the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça.
For parties whose disputes are still at an early stage, or whose contracts are being drafted now, it is worth noting the trajectory: from 1 July 2025 onwards, new English proceedings falling within the scope of the 2019 Hague Convention will, once concluded, be enforceable under that framework across participating states. Separately, Albania and Montenegro join the Convention from 1 March 2026, and Andorra from 1 June 2026. The practical significance of the 2019 Convention for UK–EU enforcement will therefore grow steadily as time passes and new proceedings accumulate. A detailed analysis of this trajectory is available in our Hague Judgments Convention 2019 impact briefing.
Strategy and Rationale
Once it was confirmed that neither convention applied, the team turned to the Portuguese national route. Under Portuguese civil procedure, a foreign judgment must be reviewed and confirmed (revista) by the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça before it acquires the force of a domestic enforceable title (título executivo). This is not a re-trial on the merits; the STJ applies a limited review. The grounds for refusal are broadly analogous to public policy, service, due process and jurisdiction – but the process requires a formal application, Portuguese-language translations of the judgment and underlying documentation, and representation by a Portuguese lawyer (advogado).
The strategy adopted in the scenario had three components:
- Early asset mapping: Before commencing the exequatur application, available public registry data was reviewed to confirm that the Debtor's Portuguese real property remained registered in its name, and that no encumbrances or transfer had been recorded. This step was essential to assessing whether enforcement would yield a meaningful result even if the application succeeded.
- Provisional asset freezing: Portuguese law permits a creditor to apply for a precautionary attachment (arresto) of the debtor's assets in advance of, or alongside, the exequatur application, provided certain conditions are met. Securing this attachment early was prioritised to reduce the risk of asset dissipation during the potentially lengthy review period.
- Parallel engagement on late payment interest: The English judgment included a sum for contractual late payment interest. The team confirmed with Portuguese counsel that, as part of the enforcement process, post-judgment interest under Portuguese rules would also accrue on the recognised debt from the date of enforcement onward, in addition to any interest component already embedded in the judgment.
If your business is holding an unrecovered judgment or an unpaid invoice against a Portuguese party, we would be glad to assess the available options with you. Please reach out at info@ferrazwhitmore.com or visit our contacts page.
Key Milestones in the Process
The following milestones reflect the typical sequence in matters of this type. Actual timelines vary depending on court lists, the complexity of documentation and whether the debtor contests the application.
- Instruction and documentation: Engagement of Portuguese advogado; preparation of apostilled copies of the judgment, supporting pleadings and translations; verification of Debtor's current registration status.
- Precautionary attachment application: Filed as a separate or ancillary proceeding where the risk of dissipation could be demonstrated; heard on an urgent basis by a first-instance court in the Debtor's jurisdiction.
- Exequatur application to the STJ: Formal petition filed with the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça; the Debtor is notified and given an opportunity to oppose; the STJ does not hear new evidence on the underlying merits but examines regularity, finality, due process compliance and compatibility with Portuguese public policy.
- Confirmation order: If the STJ grants the revista, the English judgment acquires the status of a Portuguese enforceable title.
- Enforcement action (acção executiva): Proceedings filed before a first-instance enforcement court (tribunal de execução); the enforcement agent (agente de execução) carries out seizure of identified assets, including real property and bank accounts.
Complications Encountered
Three categories of complication are frequently encountered in scenarios of this type and were present here to varying degrees.
Documentation and translation: Portuguese courts require certified translations into Portuguese of all foreign-language documents. The English judgment and the original commercial contract were both lengthy; preparing legally accurate translations added time and cost that the Creditor had not budgeted for at the outset.
Debtor opposition at the STJ stage: The Debtor filed a formal opposition, arguing that service of the original English proceedings had been irregular – a recognised ground for refusal under Portuguese national rules. This required the Creditor's team to produce detailed evidence of the service steps taken, including records held by the UK courts. The STJ ultimately found service to have been compliant, but the opposition extended the timeline materially.
Regulatory and administrative intersections: The Debtor was a regulated entity with reporting obligations to both the Banco de Portugal and the CMVM (Comissão do Mercado de Valores Mobiliários). The precautionary attachment over bank accounts triggered notification obligations to Banco de Portugal. Coordination between enforcement counsel and those regulatory interfaces required careful management to avoid procedural complications. In other scenarios involving foreign nationals resident in Portugal, the AIMA (Agência para a Integração, Migrações e Asilo) and the Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira may also have intersecting interests in enforcement-related asset questions.
Outcome Category
In matters of this type, where the STJ confirms the foreign judgment and the debtor's assets have been effectively preserved by prior attachment, the outcome generally falls into one of two categories: realisation through judicial sale of the attached assets, or a negotiated settlement by the debtor who, facing imminent forced sale, opts to discharge the debt voluntarily. The illustrative scenario resulted in the latter outcome category. No specific sum or percentage recovery figure is presented, as this is an illustrative scenario rather than a factual report.
It is also worth noting that if the Debtor had been in financial difficulty, a parallel analysis of Portuguese insolvency proceedings would have been relevant. Our bankruptcy and restructuring practice in Portugal addresses the intersection of creditor enforcement and formal insolvency procedures.
Three Transferable Lessons
The illustrative scenario yields the following lessons, each of which applies to a broad range of cross-border enforcement matters in Portugal after Brexit.
Lesson 1 – Establish the applicable legal framework before, not after, a dispute arises. The absence of a mutual recognition regime for UK judgments in pre-2025 proceedings is a structural feature of the post-Brexit landscape, not an anomaly. Commercial contracts with Portuguese counterparties should be reviewed to determine whether they contain an exclusive jurisdiction clause sufficient to engage the 2005 Hague Convention. Where they do not, the national exequatur route must be planned for explicitly, including its cost and time implications.
Lesson 2 – Move early on asset preservation. The Portuguese precautionary attachment mechanism is available and effective, but it requires an application supported by evidence of the debt and the risk of dissipation. Creditors who delay while pursuing amicable resolution risk finding that assets have been transferred or encumbered by the time enforcement becomes necessary. Debt recovery planning should incorporate asset-mapping from the moment default becomes apparent.
Lesson 3 – The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention changes the calculus for future disputes. For UK parties entering into contracts now, or for disputes where proceedings have not yet commenced, the entry into force of the 2019 Convention for the UK on 1 July 2025 is a significant development. Proceedings instituted after that date will, once concluded, benefit from a multilateral recognition framework across participating states. Contract drafters and litigation strategists should take this into account when selecting forum and structuring jurisdiction clauses.
For a more detailed analysis of how the 2019 Convention interacts with UK–EU enforcement flows, including its scope, exclusions and the position of specific asset classes, see our dedicated briefing linked above.
How Ferraz & Whitmore Can Assist
Our Portugal-based team works with foreign creditors, trading companies and investment funds on the full cycle of cross-border debt recovery – from pre-litigation assessment and precautionary measures through to exequatur applications and enforcement actions. We coordinate with English, and other foreign, law firms where multi-jurisdictional coverage is required. Details of our Portugal debt recovery services are available at ferrazwhitmore.com/services/debt-recovery/portugal/.
If you are holding an English judgment, an unrecovered unpaid invoice, or a payment order that you need to enforce against assets in Portugal, we welcome a preliminary discussion of your position. Please contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com or through our contacts page.
Disclaimer: This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. Ferraz & Whitmore assumes no liability for actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this material. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@ferrazwhitmore.com.