This is part of a series of bulletins for US lawyers and parties who may have litigation or disputes in England, issued by partner Stephen Rosen who heads our UK/USA disputes team.

Bulletins from our UK/USA disputes team:

1) Pro-active steps to obtaining deposition evidence under the Hague Convention

2) Care needed when serving US proceedings in the UK

3) Collective actions: England cautious – catch-up with the US

4) Comparison of Chapter 11 US insolvencies with the UK approach 

5) Enforcing US Judgments in England

This briefing explains the route to enforcement of US judgments in England in the absence of a reciprocal enforcement arrangement between the countries. Securing a judgment is only the first step in litigation. Enforcement, particularly across jurisdictions, can present distinct challenges.

Reciprocal Enforcement

The Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (“Hague Judgements Convention”) came into force in the UK on 1 July 2025. This provides a framework for the recognition and enforcement of judgements between contracting states.  Although the US signed the Convention in 2022, it has not ratified it. Consequently, there is currently no reciprocal enforcement arrangement between the US and the UK. This is a matter of increasing relevance given the volume of transatlantic commercial disputes.

Until ratification or an alternative arrangement is implemented, US judgments must be enforced under English common law. This requires the judgment creditor to commence fresh proceedings in England[1] for a contractual debt (that contractual debt being the US judgment).

Requirements for Enforcement

There are various elements that the English court must satisfy itself of before it will consider enforcing a US judgment. It is important to ensure that these are all met before a judgment creditor goes to the cost of enforcing the US judgment in England.

The English court will normally enforce the US judgement unless the judgment debtor (ie the party against whom the US judgement has been given) can satisfy it that the following specific conditions have not been satisfied:

• Jurisdiction: The US court must have had jurisdiction under English private international law ie on a territorial or consensual basis. This generally requires the judgement debtor to have been present in the US when proceedings began (the judgement creditor has the burden of proof for this) or to have submitted to US jurisdiction, for instance via a contractual jurisdiction clause within the relevant contract between the parties or by voluntary participation in the US proceedings. As to the latter basis, it is important to note that not every form of engagement with the US proceedings will satisfy the English court that the judgment debtor had submitted to that jurisdiction. Limited appearances are insufficient. For example, in Shovlin v Careless and others[2] the judgment debtors’ only appearance before the Californian Court was to contest jurisdiction, which was not sufficient to establish that they had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Californian Court. Also note that Section 32(1) of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982[3] would provide a defence where the judgment was obtained contrary to an agreement specifying a jurisdiction other than the US or an arbitration clause mandating than any disputes must be settled by arbitration proceedings.
• Final and conclusive. The English court will not enforce foreign judgments which remain subject to appeal, amount to interim or provisional orders (including injunctions) or which are inconsistent with a prior judgment on the same subject matter between the same parties. If a US appeal is pending the English court is likely to stay enforcement until the appeal has been disposed of.
• Definite Sum: Only judgments for a fixed monetary amount are enforceable. Declarations or non-monetary orders are excluded as are a broad category of penalties including fines. Judgements for taxes will also not be enforced.
• Fraud: A judgment obtained by fraud will not be recognised. The judgement debtor must show proof of conscious and deliberate dishonesty to establish this ground.
• Public Policy: Enforcement will be refused if to do so is contrary to English public policy or the European Convention on Human Rights (this rarely occurs in practice in relation to US judgements).
• Natural Justice: The US judgment must not have been granted in circumstances contrary to substantive or natural justice, which generally speaking means the right to be notified and heard. For example, if the judgment debtor was not duly served or otherwise did not have a proper opportunity to defend itself, the English court may decline recognition and enforcement of the resulting US judgment.

Procedure for enforcement

The limitation period for the issue of the English proceedings is six years from the date the judgment became enforceable under US law.

Proceedings are commenced by issuing a Part 7 claim form. Where the judgment debtor is outside England, permission to serve out of the jurisdiction must be obtained after filing the claim and before service and will generally be granted if the judgement debtor has assets in the UK. Applications for permission are usually “paper applications” rather than requiring a hearing.

Once the proceedings are issued and served the judgement creditor will generally issue a default judgment if there has been no response to the proceedings. If there has been a response, then the judgement creditor will usually issue an application for summary judgement as a quick and more cost effective method of enforcing the US judgement (without needing the steps that usually take place in proceedings and a trial).  A summary judgement application is usually appropriate as the English court will very rarely indeed need to consider the issues that underly the US judgement.

By Abbie Coleman (associate solicitor) and Stephen Rosen (partner).

Issued by Stephen Rosen head of UK/USA disputes team, Collyer Bristow.

[1] References to England are to England and Wales.

[2] (2024) EWHC 324 (KB) https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2024/324.html

[3]  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1982/27/section/32