Since Brexit, EU judgments no longer benefit from the automatic mutual recognition mechanisms that once applied between the United Kingdom and EU Member States, meaning that a creditor holding a French, German or Portuguese court order cannot simply register it in England and Wales as they once could. The applicable legal framework now depends primarily on when proceedings were instituted, whether the original contract contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause, and which international conventions bind both states at the relevant date. From 1 July 2025, the Hague Judgments Convention 2019 opens a new route for qualifying judgments, but for proceedings commenced before that date, creditors must rely on the Hague Convention of 2005 or on common law exequatur rules.
Why the Brexit Cut-Off Still Matters in Practice
Before 31 December 2020, the Brussels Recast Regulation (Brussels Ia) provided a seamless, near-automatic framework for recognising and enforcing civil and commercial judgments across the EU and in the UK. When the UK's transition period ended, that framework ceased to apply. The UK did not accede to the Lugano Convention 2007 as a standalone contracting party, and the EU did not consent to the UK's application to do so. The result is a fragmented landscape that catches many foreign businesses off guard, particularly those pursuing unpaid invoices or seeking asset freezing orders against UK-domiciled defendants.
The practical consequence is that each EU judgment must now be assessed individually: what date were proceedings commenced, what did the contract say about jurisdiction, and what assets does the debtor hold in the UK? These questions determine both the procedural route and the realistic timeline for enforcement.
The Three Legal Routes Available Today
1. The Hague Judgments Convention 2019
The Hague Judgments Convention 2019 entered into force for the UK on 1 July 2025. It applies to judgments given in proceedings instituted after that date, provided both the state of origin and the state addressed were parties to the Convention at the time proceedings commenced. The EU (excluding Denmark) is already a contracting party. This means that for new litigation initiated after 1 July 2025, the Convention provides a structured, treaty-based route for enforcing EU judgments in the UK and vice versa.
Critically, the Convention applies only to judgments in civil and commercial matters falling within its scope. It excludes, among other things, insolvency proceedings, family law, and certain intellectual property matters. Where a payment order or debt collection judgment from an EU court meets the Convention's requirements, the creditor may apply to the English High Court for recognition and enforcement without needing to re-litigate the underlying merits.
For judgments in proceedings instituted before 1 July 2025, the Convention offers no assistance. Those cases fall into the categories described below.
2. The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005
Where the original contract contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause designating the courts of an EU Member State, the Hague Convention 2005 may apply. Both the EU and the UK are parties to this Convention. It covers judgments resulting from proceedings based on such exclusive clauses, provided the agreement was concluded after the Convention entered into force for both states.
This route is narrower than many creditors assume. The clause must be genuinely exclusive and must comply with the Convention's formal requirements. If the contract used a non-exclusive or asymmetric clause, the 2005 Convention does not apply, and the creditor falls back on common law rules.
3. Common Law Exequatur (the Default Route)
For EU judgments that fall outside both Hague Conventions, the only available path is the English common law rules on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. Under this route, the creditor commences a fresh action in the English courts, typically in the High Court, relying on the foreign judgment as either a cause of action or as conclusive evidence of a debt. The court will recognise the judgment if:
- the foreign court had jurisdiction in the international sense recognised by English law;
- the judgment is final and conclusive on the merits;
- the sum is a definite, fixed amount of money (not a penalty or tax);
- recognition is not contrary to public policy; and
- the judgment was not obtained by fraud or in breach of natural justice.
Once recognised, the foreign judgment becomes an English judgment, and the full range of CPR enforcement tools becomes available: writ of control, third-party debt order, charging order, attachment of earnings, or application for an asset freezing injunction (formerly a Mareva injunction).
If you are considering this route or are uncertain which Convention applies to your situation, our team is available to advise. Please write to info@ferrazwhitmore.com or visit our contacts page.
Step-by-Step Procedure in England and Wales
Step 1 – Assess the Judgment and Gather Documents
Before filing anything, the enforcing party should obtain certified copies of the foreign judgment, a certificate of service (confirming the defendant was properly served in the original proceedings), and, where the Hague Judgments Convention 2019 applies, the standardised form issued by the court of origin. All documents not in English must be accompanied by a certified translation.
At this stage it is also worth conducting preliminary asset searches. A search at Companies House will reveal UK-registered entities controlled by the debtor, while land registry searches can locate real property. If the debtor is a regulated firm, FCA registration data may assist in identifying financial assets. Where there is a risk of asset dissipation, an application for a freezing order should be considered alongside, or even before, the recognition application.
Step 2 – Issue Proceedings or File the Application
Under the common law route, the creditor issues a claim form in the High Court (usually the King's Bench Division or the Commercial Court for higher-value matters). The claim is typically for a debt based on the foreign judgment, and summary judgment is sought under CPR Part 24 on the basis that the defendant has no real prospect of resisting recognition. Service must comply with CPR rules, including any applicable service-out-of-jurisdiction provisions where the defendant is abroad.
Under the Hague Judgments Convention 2019, the procedural mechanics are subject to the UK's domestic implementing rules. Applicants should verify the current form of those rules with a lawyer qualified in England and Wales before filing.
Step 3 – Respond to Any Challenge
A defendant may resist recognition on limited grounds: jurisdictional objections, fraud, public policy, or procedural fairness. In practice, well-documented EU court judgments rarely fail at this stage, but the process can be delayed if the defendant mounts a defence. Courts will not reopen the merits of the original dispute.
Issues of late payment interest also arise here. English courts will generally enforce the interest element awarded by the foreign court, but the rate and accrual method must be clearly evidenced in the judgment itself.
Step 4 – Enforce the English Judgment
Once the High Court recognises the foreign judgment and enters its own order, the creditor holds an English judgment and can deploy all available CPR enforcement mechanisms. For corporate debtors, a writ of control against assets, a third-party debt order against bank accounts, or a charging order over UK property are the most common methods. Where OFSI sanctions are relevant (for example, if the debtor is a designated person), enforcement may require a specific licence, and this must be checked early.
Realistic Timelines
Timeline depends heavily on whether the defendant contests recognition. An uncontested common law application in the Commercial Court may be resolved in three to six months from issue. A contested application can take considerably longer. Proceedings under the Hague Judgments Convention 2019 may in time produce more standardised timelines, but early practice under that Convention has yet to accumulate. Cross-border debt collection proceedings that involve asset tracing and freezing orders add further complexity and should be budgeted accordingly.
Cost Drivers
The main cost factors in enforcing an EU judgment in the UK are:
- Translation costs: certified translations of all foreign-language documents;
- Court fees: High Court issue fees, which are calculated by reference to the claim value;
- Counsel and solicitor fees: necessary for drafting the claim, skeleton arguments and, where applicable, freezing order applications;
- Asset tracing: if the debtor's UK assets are not immediately identifiable, investigative costs can be significant;
- Enforcement costs: instructing enforcement agents or making further court applications to realise assets.
English costs rules generally allow the successful party to seek a costs order against the losing party, but recovery is rarely full and is subject to assessment.
Common Errors Made by Foreign Creditors
Based on our experience advising cross-border clients, the following mistakes recur most frequently:
- Assuming Brussels Ia still applies. Many EU-based businesses remain unaware that automatic mutual recognition ended on 31 December 2020. Delay in recognising this costs time and negotiating leverage.
- Confusing the 2005 and 2019 Hague Conventions. The 2005 Convention applies only where there is a valid exclusive jurisdiction clause; it does not cover ordinary commercial judgments without such a clause.
- Underestimating the document requirements. Missing or uncertified translations, absence of a service certificate, or an unclear judgment operative part can cause an application to be rejected or adjourned.
- Delaying asset searches. By the time a recognition order is obtained, assets may have been dissipated. Early investigative steps and, where warranted, a contemporaneous freezing order application can prevent this.
- Overlooking insolvency risk. Where the UK debtor is in or approaching financial difficulty, enforcement strategy must account for insolvency priorities. A charging order or judgment obtained shortly before insolvency may be at risk of challenge.
For creditors whose debtor may be insolvent or undergoing restructuring, our insolvency and restructuring practice in the United Kingdom can assist in coordinating enforcement and insolvency proceedings.
Decision Checklist Before You File
Before instructing lawyers to commence recognition proceedings, consider the following:
- When were the original proceedings instituted – before or after 1 July 2025?
- Does the original contract contain an exclusive jurisdiction clause? If so, does it comply with Hague 2005 requirements?
- Is the judgment final and for a fixed monetary sum?
- Have you obtained certified copies of the judgment, the service certificate and all ancillary documents?
- Have you identified the debtor's UK assets – bank accounts, real property, shares in UK companies?
- Is there a risk of asset dissipation that warrants a simultaneous freezing order application?
- Is the debtor subject to OFSI sanctions or other regulatory restrictions that could complicate enforcement?
- Is the debtor solvent, or are there signs of financial distress that affect the enforcement strategy?
Our debt recovery team in the United Kingdom works with creditors at each of these stages, from preliminary asset assessment through to final enforcement.
The European Account Preservation Order: A Note for EU-Side Assets
Where the debtor holds assets not in the UK but in an EU Member State, the European Account Preservation Order (EAPO) may still be available – it is an EU instrument and does not depend on UK participation. If you are weighing the EAPO against other pre-judgment measures, our analysis of the European Account Preservation Order as a freezing tool within the EU sets out the procedural requirements and practical considerations in detail.
How Ferraz & Whitmore Can Assist
Enforcing a foreign judgment in the UK after Brexit involves a sequence of procedural, evidentiary and strategic decisions. Whether your case falls under the Hague Judgments Convention 2019, the 2005 Choice of Court Convention, or the common law route, identifying the correct framework at the outset avoids costly procedural errors and maximises the speed of recovery. Our cross-border litigation and debt recovery practice coordinates with local English counsel and combines knowledge of both EU and UK procedural law.
To discuss your specific situation – whether you hold a final judgment, a payment order, or are still in the pre-litigation phase – please contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com or through our contacts page. We will review the documentation and advise on the most efficient route to enforcement.
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.