The Hague Judgments Convention 2019 applies to the United Kingdom from 1 July 2025, meaning that civil and commercial judgments issued in proceedings commenced on or after that date will, for the first time since Brexit, enjoy a multilateral treaty framework for mutual recognition and enforcement between the UK and EU Member States (Denmark excepted). For businesses with outstanding cross-border claims, this shift introduces both meaningful new opportunities and important transitional limitations that must be understood before any enforcement strategy is designed. Judgments arising from proceedings instituted before that date continue to rely on separate legal instruments, making the timing of litigation a critical variable in any debt recovery plan.
Background: The Enforcement Gap That Brexit Created
When the United Kingdom left the European Union, it simultaneously exited the Brussels Recast Regulation (Regulation 1215/2012), which had provided a seamless, court-to-court mechanism for recognising and enforcing judgments across Member States. For creditors with unpaid invoices owed by EU-based debtors, or for EU creditors seeking to execute against UK assets, the loss of that framework was immediate and consequential. Enforcement of judgment suddenly required navigating a patchwork of national exequatur procedures, each with its own procedural requirements, timelines and grounds for refusal.
In the years following Brexit, practitioners seeking to enforce an English High Court judgment in an EU Member State – or vice versa – were largely confined to the domestic rules of the target jurisdiction, supplemented in limited cases by bilateral arrangements or, where parties had drafted exclusive jurisdiction clauses, the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005. That 2005 Convention remains in force and continues to govern enforcement where the qualifying conditions are met, but its scope is narrow: it applies only where there is a valid, exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of a contracting state's courts. Many commercial contracts, particularly in the debt collection and late payment context, either lack such clauses or use non-exclusive forum selection, leaving those claims entirely outside the 2005 framework.
The result has been a structurally weaker position for cross-border creditors, increased litigation costs, and in some cases a practical inability to recover debts even where a payment order or judgment has already been obtained. The Hague Judgments Convention 2019 is designed, in part, to address this gap.
The Hague Judgments Convention 2019: Core Mechanics
The 2019 Convention establishes a general framework under which judgments given by courts of one contracting state must be recognised and enforced in other contracting states, subject to defined grounds of refusal. Unlike the Brussels Recast Regulation, it does not create direct court-to-court transmission or automatic enforcement; rather, it obliges contracting states to recognise and enforce qualifying judgments through their own national procedures, provided certain jurisdictional filters are satisfied. These filters – referred to as indirect jurisdictional bases – determine whether the originating court had a sufficient connection to the dispute to justify cross-border effect.
The Convention covers civil and commercial matters broadly, but excludes a number of areas likely to be relevant to practitioners: insolvency and restructuring proceedings, family law, intellectual property in certain respects, and antitrust matters, among others. For mainstream debt recovery and enforcement of judgment in commercial relationships, the Convention's scope is generally workable, though the precise contours of exclusions will generate questions of interpretation over time.
Critically, the Convention applies only to judgments given in proceedings instituted after its entry into force between the states concerned. This temporal limitation is not a technicality – it is a fundamental boundary of the Convention's reach.
Entry Into Force: The 1 July 2025 Threshold
For the United Kingdom, the Convention enters into force on 1 July 2025. The EU (with the exception of Denmark) is already a contracting party. This means that from 1 July 2025, proceedings commenced in the UK or in an EU Member State will, once concluded, produce judgments capable of enforcement under the Convention in the counterpart jurisdiction – provided all other conditions are satisfied.
The Convention's reach will expand further in the coming years. Albania and Montenegro are scheduled to become contracting parties from 1 March 2026, and Andorra from 1 June 2026. Ukraine and Uruguay are also contracting states, extending the framework beyond the EU-UK bilateral context.
Denmark's exclusion from the EU's accession to the Convention reflects its longstanding opt-out position under EU justice and home affairs policy. Creditors with claims against Danish counterparties, or seeking to enforce UK judgments in Denmark, must continue to rely on national rules or any applicable bilateral arrangements.
The Transitional Problem: What Happens to Pre-July 2025 Claims
This is where the practical stakes are highest for clients who have already commenced litigation or are holding existing judgments. The Convention's temporal scope is clear: only proceedings instituted after the date of entry into force between the relevant contracting states qualify. A judgment obtained in English High Court proceedings commenced in 2023 or 2024 – however well-founded – falls entirely outside the Convention's enforcement mechanism when the creditor seeks to execute against assets in an EU Member State.
For those pre-July 2025 judgments, the available routes are:
- The Hague Convention 2005 – applicable where there is a valid exclusive jurisdiction clause designating the courts of a contracting state. This remains the most reliable treaty-based route for commercial contracts that include such clauses, and its interaction with the 2019 Convention will require careful analysis on a case-by-case basis.
- National exequatur procedures – each EU Member State has its own domestic rules governing the recognition of foreign (including UK) judgments. In Portugal, for example, the process involves a formal recognition action before the competent court. Timelines, costs and grounds for refusal vary considerably across Member States. Practitioners should review our analysis of enforcing an English judgment in Portugal post-Brexit for a worked illustration of these challenges.
- Re-litigation – in cases where exequatur is unavailable or disproportionately costly, some creditors elect to commence fresh proceedings in the enforcement jurisdiction, using the existing judgment as evidence of the debt where procedurally permissible. This is resource-intensive and not universally available, but in some jurisdictions it may be the only realistic path.
Clients holding unenforceable or difficult-to-enforce pre-2025 judgments should seek legal advice promptly. In some cases, procedural steps – including asset freezing applications before national courts, or initiating fresh CPR-compliant proceedings – may preserve options that would otherwise lapse.
Practical Impact on Debt Recovery Strategy in the UK
For businesses engaged in cross-border debt collection involving UK counterparties, the 2019 Convention introduces several practical changes to how enforcement of judgment should be approached from 1 July 2025 onward.
Timing of proceedings. The date on which proceedings are instituted now carries treaty-level significance. Creditors who delay commencing litigation risk falling into an uncertain transitional zone where the Convention's benefits may be unavailable. Where a debt is disputed or an unpaid invoice is ageing, early legal action preserves access to the Convention's framework and reduces enforcement risk downstream.
Jurisdictional drafting. The Convention's indirect jurisdictional filters will interact with how contracts are drafted. While the 2019 Convention does not require an exclusive jurisdiction clause (unlike the 2005 Convention), the presence or absence of a jurisdiction clause, and the court designated, will affect which enforcement routes are available in any given scenario. Contract review and renegotiation, where feasible, remains advisable.
Asset identification and freezing. The Convention facilitates enforcement but does not itself provide asset-tracing or interim relief. Creditors should continue to use available domestic tools – including asset freezing orders and disclosure applications under the Senior Courts Act 1981, Companies House searches, and FCA register checks where the debtor is a regulated entity – alongside the Convention framework. OFSI screening may also be relevant where sanctions exposure is a consideration in the enforcement of a payment order against a foreign entity.
Late payment interest. UK law permits the recovery of late payment interest under the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998. Whether an EU enforcement court will give full effect to an interest award calculated under that Act will depend on the law of the enforcement state and the applicable treaty provisions. This remains an open interpretive question under the 2019 Convention and should be factored into the overall value assessment of any claim.
If your business is currently managing cross-border receivables or considering enforcement action in the UK or EU, the Ferraz & Whitmore team is available to advise on the most appropriate strategy given the transitional framework. You can reach us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com or through our contacts page.
Open Questions and Interpretive Risks
The 2019 Convention is a relatively new instrument, and its application – particularly in the post-Brexit UK-EU context – will generate interpretive questions that courts in contracting states will resolve over time. Several deserve particular attention.
Scope of "civil and commercial matters." The Convention borrows a phrase familiar from Brussels Recast and earlier Hague instruments, but the body of case law under those instruments does not automatically transfer. Courts in contracting states may reach different conclusions on marginal cases, particularly involving regulatory penalties, quasi-public bodies, or mixed private and public law claims.
Grounds for refusal. The Convention permits refusal of recognition on grounds including public policy, procedural unfairness, and inconsistency with a prior judgment of the requested state's courts. How broadly enforcement courts interpret public policy exceptions – particularly in politically sensitive commercial contexts – will become clearer only through practice.
Interaction with the 2005 Convention. Where a contract contains an exclusive jurisdiction clause and the parties also seek to rely on the 2019 Convention, the relationship between the two instruments will need careful analysis. The 2005 Convention's scope is narrower but its enforcement mechanism is, in some respects, more straightforward. Practitioners should not assume that the newer instrument supersedes the older one in all situations.
Denmark. As noted above, Denmark remains outside the Convention for EU purposes. This creates a structural asymmetry in the UK-EU enforcement landscape that has no immediate resolution in view.
Insolvency, Restructuring and Related Proceedings
The 2019 Convention expressly excludes insolvency and restructuring proceedings from its scope. For creditors dealing with a debtor that is insolvent or subject to a formal restructuring process in the UK or an EU Member State, the enforcement of judgment framework provided by the Convention is not available. These situations require separate analysis under the applicable insolvency law and any relevant cross-border insolvency frameworks, including the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency as enacted in UK domestic law.
Where a debtor's solvency is in question, early intervention – including the consideration of statutory demands, winding-up petitions, or participation in foreign insolvency proceedings – may be more appropriate than pursuing a judgment that will subsequently face enforcement in an insolvent estate. Our team advises on the full spectrum of bankruptcy and restructuring proceedings in the United Kingdom, including cross-border scenarios where the interplay between enforcement and insolvency is a central concern.
Strategic Recommendations for International Creditors
Drawing together the analysis above, the following considerations should inform any cross-border enforcement strategy in the UK-EU context from mid-2025 onward.
- Audit existing claims. Distinguish between claims arising from proceedings already commenced (pre-July 2025) and those yet to be initiated. Each category requires a different enforcement strategy, and the two should not be conflated.
- Act promptly on new claims. For unpaid invoices or breached contracts where no proceedings have yet been issued, commencing action after 1 July 2025 secures access to the Convention framework from the outset. Delay introduces both legal risk and practical enforcement risk.
- Review jurisdiction clauses. Contracts that currently rely on non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses or no clause at all may benefit from amendment to ensure the widest possible range of enforcement options, including under the 2005 Convention where applicable.
- Identify assets early. Treaty frameworks facilitate enforcement but do not locate assets. Combining legal proceedings with proactive asset identification – through Companies House, FCA, OFSI and commercial databases – remains essential.
- Consider interim relief. Asset freezing applications and other interim measures under CPR remain available and should be considered wherever there is a risk of dissipation before a final judgment can be enforced.
- Factor in late payment interest and costs. The enforceability of ancillary awards (interest, legal costs) in the target jurisdiction is not guaranteed and should be modelled as a variable rather than a certainty in settlement and litigation planning.
- Monitor future accessions. Albania, Montenegro and Andorra will become contracting parties in 2026. For clients with exposures in those jurisdictions, proceedings commenced after the relevant entry-into-force dates will benefit from the Convention's framework.
For a comprehensive assessment of how the 2019 Convention applies to your specific cross-border debt recovery situation in the United Kingdom, we invite you to contact our team. Detailed guidance tailored to the facts of your matter is available at info@ferrazwhitmore.com or via our contacts page.
Outlook
The entry into force of the Hague Judgments Convention 2019 for the UK on 1 July 2025 represents the most significant development in cross-border enforcement between the UK and EU since the Brussels Recast Regulation ceased to apply. It does not restore the pre-Brexit position – the seamless, automatic enforcement mechanism of the Recast Regulation remains unavailable – but it establishes a workable multilateral foundation that, over time, will reduce the costs and uncertainty currently associated with UK-EU judgment enforcement.
The transitional boundary between pre- and post-July 2025 proceedings will be a source of litigation and strategic planning for several years. Creditors, debtors and their advisers must keep precise track of when proceedings were or will be instituted, and must not assume that a judgment obtained after July 2025 automatically benefits from the Convention without satisfying the instrument's other substantive conditions.
The longer-term picture depends on how contracting states' courts interpret the Convention's provisions, how enforcement practice develops, and whether further states accede to the instrument. The expansion to Albania, Montenegro and Andorra in 2026 is a positive signal, but the exclusion of Denmark and the non-accession of several major trading partners mean that the Convention's practical reach remains partial.
Ferraz & Whitmore will continue to monitor developments in this area. Clients seeking to structure their debt recovery operations in the United Kingdom in light of the Convention's entry into force are welcome to request a tailored analysis. Please write to info@ferrazwhitmore.com or visit our contacts page to arrange a consultation.
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.