Abstract
The cross-border recognition and enforcement of judgments is a key part ofinternational dispute resolution. In this context, the United Kingdom’s accession to the Hague 2019 Judgments Convention (“Hague 2019”) on 1 July 2025 marks a significant development for practitioners and litigants worldwide. This article examines Hague 2019’s scope, its interaction with the Hague 2005 Choice of Court Convention (“Hague 2005”), and the implications for enforcing judgments into and out of the UK.
UK’s Accession to Hague 2019: A New Era for Cross-Border Enforcement
The recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is a cornerstone of international litigation. For decades, instruments such as the Brussels Recast Regulation and the Lugano Convention provided litigants across Europe with a clear regime for the recognition of their local judgments in the UK, and vice versa. Brexit dismantled that framework, leaving parties reliant on a piecemeal combination ofHague 2005 (where applicable), bilateral treaties, or common law principles. Against this backdrop, the UK’s recent accession to Hague 2019 provides for a more predictable mechanism for cross-border enforcement of judgments into and out of the UK post-Brexit
Scope
Hague 2019 applies to civil and commercial judgments, where proceedings were commenced after Hague 2019 entered into force in both the state of origin and the state in which enforcement is sought.
Its scope is broad, covering:
• Monetary judgments;
• Non-monetary judgments (but not interim measures); and
• Orders for costs, provided they relate to a judgment covered by the Convention.
What Is Excluded?
Hague 2019 excludes judgments relating to certain subjects. Examples include revenue, customs, family law, insolvency, intellectual property, defamation, and competition law. Interim measures such as freezing orders also fall outside its scope. These exclusions reflect areas where international consensus is limited or where enforcement raises particular sensitivities.
How Enforcement Works
The enforcement process under Hague 2019 for parties seeking recognition and enforcement of a judgment abroad is as follows:
1. An application for recognition and enforcement is made in the courts of the requested state – a complete and certified copy of the judgment will need to be provided.
2. The court will assess whether the judgment meets the Convention’s criteria – primarily whether (i) the judgment falls within its scope and (ii) the original court had jurisdiction under grounds set out in Article 5, which includeconsideration of:
• The defendant’s habitual residence being in the state of origin;
• The defendant’s principal place of business being in the state of origin;
• The place of performance of the contractual obligation;
• The defendant’s express submission to the original court’s jurisdiction (e.g. by agreeing to litigate there);
• The defendant’s conduct in the proceedings (e.g. appearing without contesting jurisdiction); and
• A strong connection between the dispute and the forum (e.g. torts committed in the state).
3. No review of the merits is permitted. The foreign court cannot re-examine the substance of the dispute or the original decision.
4. Recognition may only be refused on limited grounds, which echo the similar grounds referred to under Hague 2005 and include:
• Public policy of the requested state;
• Lack of proper notice to the defendant;
• Fraud in obtaining the judgment;
• Incompatibility with a prior judgment between the same parties; or
• Lack of enforceability in the State of origin.
Once recognised, the judgment is enforceable as if it were a domestic judgment, subject to the procedural rules of the enforcing jurisdiction.
Relationship with Hague 2005
For contracts with exclusive jurisdiction clauses, Hague 2005 provides a framework for the recognition and enforcement of judgments by a court of the contracting state designated in that jurisdiction clause.
Hague 2019, by contrast, has a broader remit; it applies not only to contracts with exclusive jurisdiction clauses but also to those with non-exclusive and asymmetric clauses, and even non-contractual disputes. However, whilst in most cases recognition and enforcement of a judgment should be straightforward, the requirement for consideration of the factual jurisdictional connections at the enforcement stage potentially provides less certainty and could give defendants more scope for challenge.
Conclusion
Hague 2019 is a welcome addition to the international dispute resolution toolkit, restoring some predictability in cross-border enforcement of judgments into and out of the UK. Together with Hague 2005, the two conventions form a complementary framework for international litigation. For international lawyers, understanding these Conventions is essential to advising clients on enforcement risks and opportunities in an increasingly interconnected legal landscape.
