Enforcement of foreign judgments: recent developments in the English courts

Richard Marshall and Harriet Campbell
Penningtons Manches Cooper, London
richard.marshalll@penningtonslaw.com
harriet campbell@penningtonslaw.com

Enforcement – procedural options

Reciprocal conventions and treaties (including the Hague Choice of Court and Hague Judgment Conventions) apply to the enforcement of foreign judgments in the English courts. Older regimes (including the Administration of Judgments Act 1920) apply to former commonwealth countries or those with bilateral enforcement treaties with England.
Where no convention applies (including, for example, to many countries in the Middle East, the People's Republic of China and the United States of America), the English courts will recognise and enforce any 'final' money judgment under the common law. The question of what is 'final' for these purposes (and under similar provisions in the conventions), is one which has recently come under scrutiny.

Challenges to enforcement: finality

It is well established under English law that a judgment can be 'final and conclusive' despite being subject to an appeal. However, defendants often seek to argue the contrary. 

A clear example of this is the recent case of Wei v Junhong [2026] EWHC 1892 (Comm), where the Commercial Court enforced a Chinese judgment worth more than US$2.1 million under the common law rules for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.

The defendant argued that the judgment was not sufficiently final and conclusive because 'review' procedures remained available in China. It was also alleged that the Chinese courts had failed properly to consider evidence submitted in support of a retrial application and that enforcement would therefore offend principles of natural justice (another key ground of challenge).

The court rejected both arguments. It held that a foreign judgment may remain final and conclusive for English enforcement purposes despite the existence of review or retrial mechanisms, provided that the judgment continues to have binding and res judicata effect in the foreign jurisdiction. If the foreign judgment is set aside on appeal in the foreign forum, the affected party can seek to stay or set aside the enforcing judgment under its civil procedure rules (CPR 40.8(a)): see Motorola v Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 1667.

A judgment does not fail the 'final and conclusive' test, simply because the court has missed one of the arguments which a party had raised. The court emphasised that enforcement proceedings are not an opportunity to revisit the merits of decisions reached by foreign courts.

The judgment also confirms that the natural justice defence remains narrowly confined to questions of procedural fairness rather than disagreements about the correctness of the foreign court's reasoning.

This decision enforcing a PRC judgment follows an earlier decision this year in which five PRC judgments against defendants now residing in England were enforced. In Qing Li & Ors v Fan Yuan & Anor [2026] EWHC 242 (Comm), one of the challenges to enforcement was that the PRC court did not have jurisdiction over the defendants because they had relocated to Cyprus before the proceedings began. In rejecting this argument, the court relied on the fact that the defendants had remained registered as habitual residents on the relevant statutory register, and had not, in compliance with PRC law, cancelled their registration.

These decisions provide further reassurance to parties seeking to enforce judgments from jurisdictions whose procedures may differ significantly from those of England and Wales. The court's focus in both cases remained on whether the defendant had received a fair process, not whether the foreign court reached the right result.

Service of enforcement proceedings

Before enforcement of a foreign judgment can take place, unwary litigants may find that procedural issues in service can create practical difficulties, particularly where judgment debtors reside overseas. However, the courts have recently demonstrated a pragmatic approach to such obstacles.

In Mitchell v Al Jaber [2026] EWHC 1947 (Ch), the court refused to set aside an order permitting alternative service (by email on the defendant's English solicitors) of enforcement proceedings on a defendant resident in France. 

In this case, service was subject to the Hague Service Convention (currently applying to 84 contracting states, including England and France). In interpreting the service requirements under the convention, the court held that the correct test is not whether 'exceptional circumstances' exist but whether there is a 'good reason' for alternative service.

Several factors supported the order for alternative service:
•    the proceedings concerned enforcement rather than determination of liability;
•    attempts to serve documents conventionally had proved unsuccessful;
•    the defendant's solicitors remained actively engaged on the defendant's behalf;
•    service through those solicitors was more likely to bring the proceedings to his attention; and
•    there was evidence suggesting the defendant may have been using service requirements to delay enforcement.

The decision reflects an increasingly practical approach by the English courts, focused on the fundamental purpose of service: ensuring that proceedings come to the defendant's attention. It will be welcomed by judgment creditors facing tactical obstruction in cross-border enforcement cases, where service of proceedings can otherwise take many months.

Enforcement against assets held through third-party structures

A further significant development concerns enforcement against assets beneficially owned by judgment debtors but held through intermediaries.

In Soprim Construction SARL v Republic of Djibouti [2026] EWHC 1850 (Comm), the Commercial Court granted a final charging order over approximately US$42 million held in London bank accounts.

Although the accounts were legally owned by a Djiboutian port operator, the court concluded that the funds were beneficially owned by the Republic of Djibouti and held on trust for it. As a result, the assets could be targeted to satisfy outstanding arbitral awards obtained against the Republic.

The court undertook a detailed analysis of trust principles and beneficial ownership, drawing inferences from the Republic's degree of control over the relevant entities, the conduct of those managing the assets and the absence of evidence supporting any alternative explanation.

The case demonstrates the willingness of English courts to look beyond formal ownership structures in appropriate cases. For those advising parties on enforcement, it highlights the importance of investigating whether assets apparently belonging to third parties may in fact be held beneficially for a judgment debtor.

Foreign judgments and insolvency proceedings

The most dramatic development in the law governing enforcement of foreign judgments, however, was the Supreme Court's decision in Drelle v Servis-Terminal LLC [2026] UKSC 29.

Overturning an earlier decision of the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court held that an unrecognised and unregistrable foreign judgment could constitute a qualifying debt for the purposes of a bankruptcy petition under section 267 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

The decision significantly strengthens the position of judgment creditors. Following the Court of Appeal's decision, creditors had been obliged to undertake potentially lengthy recognition proceedings before relying on a foreign judgment in insolvency processes. Now, in appropriate circumstances, creditors can proceed directly to bankruptcy proceedings without first obtaining recognition.

The ruling reflects the independent nature of insolvency jurisdiction. The court distinguished between enforcing a foreign judgment, and relying upon the underlying debt evidenced by that judgment. While the decision related to individual bankruptcy, it is anticipated that the court will apply the same analysis to winding up proceedings for corporates.

From a practical perspective, the decision increases pressure on debtors with assets or connections in England. Foreign judgments now have the potential to create immediate insolvency consequences even before recognition issues have been resolved.

Key themes emerging from the recent cases

While different in subject and scope, these recent decisions highlight a growing emphasis on practical effectiveness in judicial decision-making on enforcement. Whether dealing with foreign law challenges, alternative service, or tracing beneficial ownership, the courts are looking beyond technical formalities to the substance of the enforcement process.

Notably, the English courts have demonstrated the flexibility of their enforcement tools to address increasingly complex international disputes. The decisions in Soprim and Drelle in particular demonstrate a readiness to facilitate recovery against sophisticated asset-holding structures and across jurisdictional boundaries.

For judgment creditors, English courts continue to provide robust mechanisms for converting foreign judgments and awards into meaningful recovery. Absent genuine concerns about jurisdiction, procedural fairness or public policy, foreign judgments are generally likely to be recognized and enforced in England and Wales.