INTRODUCTION Contributed by: James Herring, Addleshaw Goddard
Arbitral awards The ease of enforcement of most arbitral awards is a relevant consideration when, before contracting, par - ties decide on their preferred form of dispute resolu - tion. The New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards continues to attract new signatories and now has 172 contract - ing states. It provides wide-ranging global coverage for the enforcement of certain arbitral awards and is one of the attractions of arbitration over court litiga - tion. Hague – two sister conventions The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agree - ments 2005 (“Hague Convention 2005”) received much greater attention in the United Kingdom after the UK’s exit from the European Union and – as a result – the reciprocal enforcement regime of the Recast Brussels Regulation. Under the Hague Con - vention 2005, contracting states agree to recognise and enforce judgments given by the courts of other Hague Convention 2005 contracting states, where jurisdiction is based on an exclusive choice of court agreement between the parties. At the time of writing (July 2025), the Hague Convention 2005 contract - ing states are Albania, Bahrain, EU member states, Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Singapore, Switzerland, the UK (the UK acceded in its own right at the end of the Brexit TP) and Ukraine. China, Israel and the United States have all signed but not ratified the Hague Convention 2005, so it is not in force for those countries. The Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Com - mercial Matters (“Hague Judgments Convention 2019”) is intended to operate as a sister convention to the Hague Convention 2005, aiming to establish “a common framework for the global circulation of judgments in civil or commercial matters”. As with any international agreement, the extent to which the Hague Judgments Convention 2019 achieves this aim will depend on uptake. The Hague Judgments Convention 2019 is currently in force between EU member states (other than Den - mark), the UK, Uruguay and Ukraine. It deals only with the enforcement of judgments, and not with the allo -
Enforcement of Judgments: An Overview A judgment that cannot be enforced is of very little value. It is therefore important for those involved in commercial disputes to understand, before embarking on legal proceedings, where an opponent’s assets are located, what judicial assistance (if any) will be avail - able to locate assets against which to enforce, and the process for enforcement in the relevant jurisdiction(s). In a cross-border dispute, answers to these questions may drive the decision on where to sue. Once the assets have been identified and located, important questions about the enforcement process in any relevant jurisdiction include the following: • whether it is possible to enforce a judgment directly, without bringing a fresh claim; • if it is necessary to bring a fresh claim, whether it is possible to rely on an existing judgment (or wheth - er the enforcing jurisdiction will want to reopen the original dispute); • how long the enforcement process will take and what it will cost; and • the judgment debtor’s scope to resist enforcement action (and how can this risk be minimised). Obstacles to enforcement have the potential to adversely affect national and international commerce. For this reason, trading relationships often give rise to attempts to create a simplified enforcement environ - ment. For example, the European Union relies to a significant extent on mutual respect for each member state’s judicial system. This is reflected in the relatively frictionless environment for the enforcement of judg - ments of one member state in another member state under the Recast Brussels Regulation. However, even where trading blocs have reached detailed agreements on the enforcement of judg - ments, these cannot possibly cover every situation. Cross-border enforcement is therefore often a com - plex topic. And whatever the legal framework, national approach - es often differ depending on things like the type of incoming judgment, the state of origin, the subject matter of the dispute, and whether the incoming judg - ment is interim or final.
6 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook