Does the Lugano Convention still apply to the UK after Brexit?

No. The Lugano Convention 2007 ceased to apply to the UK when the Brexit transition period ended on 31 December 2020 (it is preserved only for proceedings begun before that date). The UK applied to rejoin in April 2020, but the European Commission refused to consent in June 2021. As of 2026 the UK is not a party to the Lugano Convention and there is no timetable to rejoin. For UK-EU judgments in proceedings begun on or after 1 January 2021 you must use the current framework, not Lugano or the Brussels Recast Regulation.

What rules now govern enforcement of foreign judgments in the UK?

Four main regimes: (1) the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005, where the contract contains an exclusive jurisdiction clause for a contracting state's courts; (2) the Hague Judgments Convention 2019, which entered into force for the UK on 1 July 2025; (3) the common law, by bringing a fresh action on the foreign money judgment (used for countries with no treaty, such as China and most US states); and (4) statutory registration under the Administration of Justice Act 1920 and the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 for listed reciprocating countries.

When did the Hague Judgments Convention 2019 take effect in the UK?

The UK signed the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention on 12 January 2024, ratified it on 27 June 2024, and it entered into force for the UK on 1 July 2025. Crucially, it applies only to proceedings that commenced on or after 1 July 2025 — it is not retrospective. Current contracting parties include the EU (except Denmark), Ukraine, Uruguay and the UK, with more states expected to join during 2026.

How do I enforce a Chinese court judgment in the UK?

There is no treaty between the UK and China for the mutual recognition of judgments, and China is not currently bound to the UK under the 2005 or 2019 Hague Conventions. A Chinese money judgment is therefore enforced in England through the common law: you bring a fresh action in the English court using the Chinese judgment as the debt, and can usually seek summary judgment. You must show the Chinese court had international jurisdiction over the defendant, the judgment is final and conclusive and for a fixed sum of money, and that no defence such as fraud or breach of natural justice applies.

Can an English judgment be enforced in China?

It depends on Chinese law and the principle of reciprocity, as there is no UK-China treaty on this. In recent years Chinese courts have shown an increasing willingness to recognise foreign money judgments, including English ones, on a reciprocity basis, but outcomes vary by court and by case. You should always take advice from a qualified PRC (mainland China) lawyer. Where assets or performance are in China, it is often more reliable to agree to arbitration, because arbitral awards are enforced under the New York Convention, to which both the UK and China are parties.

What is the difference between the 2005 and 2019 Hague Conventions?

The 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements applies only where the parties' contract contains an exclusive jurisdiction clause designating a contracting state's courts; the chosen court must hear the case and its judgment must be recognised in other contracting states. The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention is broader: it does not require an exclusive jurisdiction clause — any civil or commercial judgment from a contracting state can be recognised and enforced in another, provided the jurisdictional connections meet the Convention's filters and no refusal grounds apply.

What conditions must a foreign money judgment meet to be enforced at common law in England?

The foreign court must have had international jurisdiction over the defendant (for example the defendant was present in, resident in, or submitted to that court); the judgment must be final and conclusive; it must be for a definite sum of money (the common law does not enforce foreign injunctions, penalties or tax claims); and there must be no valid defence such as fraud, breach of natural justice, or conflict with English public policy. You enforce by suing on the judgment as a debt, usually with an application for summary judgment.

Is there a time limit for enforcing a foreign judgment in the UK?

Yes. Where you enforce a foreign judgment at common law by bringing a fresh action on it, the claim is generally subject to a six-year limitation period running from the date the foreign judgment became enforceable. Registration routes under the 1920 and 1933 Acts also have their own time limits. Because the applicable regime and time limits turn on the country of origin and the date proceedings began, you should check the position and act promptly rather than assume the old EU rules apply.

Cross-Border Debt Recovery and Judgment Enforcement in the UK: Why the UK Left the Lugano Convention After Brexit, the Current Hague Convention Framework (2005 / 2019), Enforcing Foreign Judgments in England, and UK–China Debt Recovery

📌 Key Takeaways

⚠️ Most important clarification: The UK is no longer a member of the Lugano Convention 2007. When the Brexit transition period ended on 31 December 2020, the Lugano Convention ceased to apply to the UK; the UK applied to rejoin in April 2020, but the EU refused to consent (June 2021). Do not use the Lugano / Brussels regime for UK–EU cross-border judgments after 2021.

The current framework replaces Lugano: recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in the UK now relies on (1) the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005, (2) the Hague Judgments Convention 2019, (3) common law, and (4) statutory reciprocity (AJA 1920 / FJ(RE)A 1933).

The Hague Judgments Convention 2019 entered into force for the UK on 1 July 2025 (the UK ratified it on 27 June 2024), and applies only to proceedings commenced on or after 1 July 2025; current contracting parties include the EU (except Denmark), Ukraine, Uruguay, and the UK.

The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005: applies where the contract contains an exclusive jurisdiction clause, designating a court in a contracting state; contracting parties include all EU member states + the UK + Singapore, Mexico, Switzerland, and others.

Common law enforcement: for countries not covered by any treaty or reciprocal arrangement (including China), a final and conclusive foreign money judgment must be enforced in England by bringing a fresh action (suing on the judgment as a debt).

No mutual recognition treaty between the UK and China: Chinese judgments in England are enforced via common law; whether an English judgment can be enforced in China depends on Chinese law and the principle of reciprocity (Chinese courts have shown a growing, though case-by-case, willingness to recognise English money judgments in recent years — always take advice from a PRC-qualified lawyer).

Sequence matters: first identify which mechanism applies (depending on the country of origin of the judgment, the type of case, the date proceedings commenced, and whether there is an exclusive jurisdiction clause), then follow the appropriate recognition / registration / enforcement procedure.

Jurisdiction: this article focuses primarily on recognition and enforcement of judgments in England and Wales; Scotland and Northern Ireland have separate procedures. Related reading: Tracing and Debt Recovery in the UK, Small Claims: England vs Scotland.

Many members of the Chinese community in the UK, cross-border business owners, and families with overseas debts or obligations face questions such as: “The other party is in the EU / China and I am in the UK — once I have a judgment, how do I enforce it across borders?” “I heard the Lugano Convention still applies after Brexit — is that true?” “Can a Chinese court judgment be used to recover a debt in the UK?”

The biggest and most common misconception is the belief that the UK still applies the Lugano Convention 2007 or the EU Brussels Recast Regulation. This is not the case — when the Brexit transition period ended at the end of 2020, these EU regimes ceased to apply to the UK, and the UK’s application to rejoin the Lugano Convention was refused by the EU. If you act on rules that are no longer in force, at best your application will be rejected and costs wasted; at worst you will miss limitation periods and lose your right to recover entirely.

This article sets out in full: the background to the Lugano / Brussels regime, why the UK left, the current framework that replaced it (Hague 2005, Hague 2019, common law, statutory reciprocity), the two-way process for enforcing judgments across borders, and the specific issues that arise with UK–China cross-border debt recovery. All legal references are accompanied by links to legislation.gov.uk, gov.uk, and HCCH.

⚠️ Core reminder: “The Lugano Convention still applies between the UK and the EU” — incorrect! Since 1 January 2021 the UK has not been a member of the Lugano Convention, and its application to rejoin was refused. When determining which mechanism applies, start with the country of origin of the judgment and the date proceedings commenced (see Section 3).

Primary legal sources:

Lugano Convention 2007 — no longer in force for the UK after Brexit (transition period ended 31 December 2020); HCCH / official information
Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005 — HCCH text
Hague Judgments Convention 2019 — HCCH text; UK implementing instrument: The Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments (2019 Hague Convention etc.) Regulations 2024
Administration of Justice Act 1920 (AJA 1920) — reciprocal registration for certain Commonwealth countries
Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 (FJ(RE)A 1933) — registration for specified reciprocating countries
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (which formerly implemented the Lugano Convention)

1. What Were the Lugano Convention and the Brussels Regime? (Historical Background)

Before Brexit, civil and commercial jurisdiction and mutual recognition of judgments between the UK and EU / EFTA states were governed primarily by two regimes:

Brussels Recast Regulation (Brussels Recast, Regulation (EU) 1215/2012) — between EU member states;
Lugano Convention 2007 — extending similar rules to EFTA states (Iceland, Norway, Switzerland) and (at the time, as an EU member) the UK.

The principal advantage of both was that a judgment from one country received near-automatic recognition and enforcement in another, without any re-examination of the merits — making cross-border debt recovery highly efficient.

📌 Precisely because this regime was so useful, many people mistakenly assumed it continued to apply after Brexit. The next section corrects this critical misunderstanding.

2. Why the UK Is No Longer Subject to the Lugano Convention (Key Clarification)

Date	Event
31 December 2020, 23:00	Brexit transition period ended — the Brussels regime and the Lugano Convention ceased to apply to the UK (preserved only for proceedings begun before that date)
April 2020	The UK applied to rejoin the Lugano Convention 2007 in its own right
June 2021	The European Commission issued a Note Verbale refusing to consent to UK accession (on the basis that the Lugano Convention is designed for countries with close regulatory integration with the EU; third countries should use the Hague Conventions)
1 July 2021	The Swiss depositary notified contracting parties of the EU’s refusal to consent
As of 2026	The UK is still not a member of the Lugano Convention; there is no timetable for it to rejoin

⚠️ Practical implication: for enforcement of judgments between the UK and EU in proceedings commenced on or after 1 January 2021, the Lugano Convention / Brussels Recast cannot be relied upon. You must use the current mechanisms set out in Section 3. The old regime may still be relevant only where the relevant proceedings were commenced before 31 December 2020 (a diminishing number of legacy cases).

3. Current Framework: Which Mechanism Applies?

Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in the UK now depends on the following mechanisms — the choice turns on: the country of origin of the judgment, whether there is an exclusive jurisdiction clause, the date proceedings commenced, and the type of case:

Mechanism	When it applies	Coverage
Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005	The contract contains an exclusive jurisdiction clause designating a court in a contracting state	All EU member states + the UK, Singapore, Mexico, Switzerland, Ukraine, Montenegro, and others
Hague Judgments Convention 2019	Proceedings commenced on or after 1 July 2025, and the judgment falls within the Convention’s scope (civil and commercial money or non-money judgments)	EU (except Denmark), Ukraine, Uruguay, UK (further states expected to join during 2026)
Common Law	Countries not covered by any treaty or reciprocal arrangement (including China and most US states)	Worldwide — but limited to final, conclusive money judgments; enforcement requires a fresh action in England
AJA 1920	Reciprocal registration for certain Commonwealth countries and territories	E.g. Singapore, parts of Malaysia, New Zealand, and others (see the statutory schedule)
FJ(RE)A 1933	Registration for countries with a specific reciprocal arrangement	E.g. parts of Canada, Australia, Israel, parts of India, and others

📌 Decision sequence: ① Does the contract contain an exclusive jurisdiction clause designating a court in a contracting state? → Hague 2005. ② Were proceedings commenced on or after 1 July 2025 and is the country of origin a contracting party to Hague 2019? → Hague 2019. ③ Is the country of origin on the AJA 1920 / FJ(RE)A 1933 list? → statutory registration. ④ None of the above (e.g. China) → common law fresh action.

4. Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005

The core rule: where the parties have agreed in their contract on an exclusive jurisdiction clause designating the courts of a contracting state as having sole jurisdiction, then:

the designated court must hear the case;
its judgment must be recognised and enforced in other contracting states (unless one of the Article 9 grounds for refusal applies, such as fraud, breach of public policy, or improper service).

Application to the UK: the UK has been a contracting party in its own right since 1 January 2021 (previously through EU membership). Note that the Convention’s obligation to recognise and enforce generally applies to exclusive jurisdiction clauses entered into after it entered into force for the relevant state — the relevant date for the UK is commonly cited as 1 October 2015 or 1 January 2021, depending on the analysis. Advice should be sought on the specific contract in question.

📌 Practical tip: including a clear exclusive jurisdiction clause designating the English courts in a cross-border contract is the most reliable foundation for cross-border enforcement later. Ambiguous or non-exclusive clauses may fall outside the Convention entirely.

5. Hague Judgments Convention 2019 (In Force for the UK from 1 July 2025)

This is the most significant post-Brexit development in filling the gap left by the Lugano Convention.

Item	Detail
UK signature	12 January 2024
UK ratification	27 June 2024
Entry into force for UK	1 July 2025
Temporal application	Applies only to proceedings commenced on or after 1 July 2025
Current contracting parties	EU (except Denmark), Ukraine, Uruguay, UK (further states expected to join in 2026)
Implementing instrument	The Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments (2019 Hague Convention etc.) Regulations 2024

Difference from Hague 2005: the Hague Judgments Convention 2019 does not require an exclusive jurisdiction clause — provided the judgment comes from a contracting state, falls within the Convention’s scope of civil and commercial matters, and the jurisdictional basis meets the Convention’s “jurisdictional filters”, it may be presented for recognition and enforcement in another contracting state. This considerably broadens the flow of judgments between the UK and the EU.

⚠️ Temporal trap: the Hague Judgments Convention 2019 is not retrospective. If proceedings were commenced before 1 July 2025, the Convention does not apply and you must fall back on common law or another mechanism. Always check the date on which proceedings commenced.

6. Common Law Enforcement — Including China and Most US States

For countries not covered by any treaty or reciprocal arrangement (such as China and most US states), a foreign judgment cannot be directly registered in England. Instead you must:

bring a fresh action in the English courts, using the foreign judgment itself as the cause of action (suing on the judgment as a debt);
you can usually apply for summary judgment — because the underlying merits have already been determined by the foreign court, the English court will generally not re-examine them.

Conditions for recognition at common law (case law):

the foreign court had international jurisdiction over the defendant (the defendant appeared, was resident in, or submitted to that court);
the judgment is final and conclusive;
the judgment is for a definite sum of money (common law will not enforce foreign non-money orders, fines, or tax claims);
there are no defences of fraud, breach of natural justice, or breach of English public policy.

📌 Key point: common law recognises only money judgments. Foreign injunctions, specific performance orders, and similar relief generally cannot be enforced in England via the common law route.

7. Statutory Reciprocal Registration (AJA 1920 / FJ(RE)A 1933)

For countries on the relevant lists, registration rather than a fresh action is available — a faster route:

Administration of Justice Act 1920 — certain Commonwealth countries and territories;
Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 — specific countries with which the UK has a reciprocal arrangement (e.g. parts of Canada, Australia, Israel, and others).

Once registered, the foreign judgment is enforceable as if it were an English judgment. Note that the list is closed — countries not on it (including China and the USA) must use the common law route.

8. The Two-Way Process: Moving a Judgment Across Borders

A. Foreign Judgment → Enforcement in the UK

Determine the applicable mechanism (Section 3);
Hague / statutory route: apply to the High Court for recognition / registration; common law route: bring a fresh action on the judgment as a debt + apply for summary judgment;
Once you have an enforceable English judgment, use domestic enforcement tools (charging orders, third-party debt orders, writs of control, etc.) to recover.

B. English Judgment → Enforcement Abroad

Obtain an English judgment (small claims / County Court / High Court);
In the target country, apply for recognition and enforcement under its law and any applicable Hague Convention or local reciprocal rules;
Always instruct local lawyers in the target country — enforcement procedures, limitation periods, and certification requirements (such as apostille and translation) vary by jurisdiction.

9. UK–China Cross-Border Debt Recovery (Special Considerations)

This is one of the scenarios most frequently encountered by the Chinese community. The key points are:

There is no bilateral treaty between the UK and China for mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments, and China is not currently bound to the UK under Hague 2005 or 2019.
Chinese judgment → enforcement in England: use common law — bring a fresh action in the English courts on the Chinese court’s final money judgment as a debt. You must show the Chinese court had international jurisdiction, the judgment is final and conclusive, and there are no defences such as fraud or breach of natural justice.
English judgment → enforcement in China: depends on Chinese law and the principle of reciprocity. In recent years Chinese courts have shown a growing willingness to recognise foreign (including English) money judgments on a reciprocity basis, though the standard and outcome vary by court and by case — always take advice from a qualified PRC (mainland China) lawyer.
Practical advice: for cross-border contracts, include an exclusive English jurisdiction clause and an arbitration clause as a fallback. Arbitral awards under the New York Convention (to which both the UK and China are parties) are often more reliably enforceable across borders than court judgments — particularly so in the UK–China context.

📌 Key strategy: where the other party’s assets or performance are located in China, consider agreeing to arbitration as the primary dispute resolution mechanism (New York Convention enforcement) rather than relying solely on court litigation — this is often the most practical enforcement route for UK–China cross-border debts.

10. Practical Checklist and Common Pitfalls

Stop using Lugano / Brussels Recast for UK–EU judgments in proceedings commenced after 2020 — this is the most common and most costly mistake.
Check the date proceedings commenced: the Hague Judgments Convention 2019 applies only to proceedings commenced on or after 1 July 2025.
Contractual foundations: including a clear exclusive jurisdiction clause or arbitration clause in cross-border contracts before a dispute arises is far preferable to seeking a remedy after the fact.
Money vs non-money relief: common law only enforces money judgments; if you need an injunction or specific performance, you must pursue those remedies directly in the target jurisdiction.
Limitation periods: bringing a fresh action in England on a foreign judgment is generally subject to a 6-year limitation period running from the date the foreign judgment became enforceable — do not delay.
Certification and translation: cross-border enforcement frequently requires apostille certification and certified translation — prepare these in advance.
Asset tracing: before enforcing, locate and investigate the other party’s assets — avoid the outcome of winning a judgment but being unable to collect.

Circle Vision Foundation Services

The Circle Vision Foundation (CVF) provides initial assessments and assistance to the Chinese community in the UK on cross-border debt and judgment enforcement:

Mechanism assessment — determining whether Hague 2005 / 2019, common law, or statutory reciprocity applies, based on the country of origin, contractual terms, and date proceedings commenced
UK–China cross-border debt strategy — comparing the common law fresh action route with arbitration (New York Convention)
Assistance with recognition / registration / fresh action — bilingual explanation of High Court applications and the common law procedure
Contract clause review — advance drafting of exclusive jurisdiction clauses and arbitration clauses
Liaison with overseas enforcement — assisting with instructing local lawyers in the target country and preparing certification and translation
Asset tracing and domestic enforcement — working alongside Tracing and Debt Recovery

Email: [email protected]
Address: 5th Floor, 167-169 Great Portland Street, London, W1W 5PF
Website: circle-vision.org/contact-us

📌 Jurisdiction / Data Version Note

Scope: this article focuses primarily on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in England and Wales; Scotland and Northern Ireland have separate procedures.

Version: based on the Lugano Convention 2007 (no longer in force for the UK), the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005, the Hague Judgments Convention 2019 (in force for the UK from 1 July 2025), AJA 1920, FJ(RE)A 1933, and common law case law (including the position as at June 2026).

Key current status: the UK is not a party to the Lugano Convention 2007 (ceased to apply from 1 January 2021; application to rejoin refused by the EU).

This article is not legal advice — cross-border enforcement is highly fact-specific and dependent on the law of the target jurisdiction; please consult a solicitor or the Circle Vision Foundation (CVF) for advice on your particular circumstances.

Version & Responsibility:

Jurisdiction: England and Wales (England & Wales) primarily
Data sources: legislation.gov.uk + gov.uk + HCCH (Hague Conference on Private International Law) + UK Parliament
Date last verified: 2026-06-03
Published by: Circle Vision Foundation (England & Wales charity registration no. 1209727)
Feedback and corrections: if you find that a rule is out of date or a fact is incorrect, please email [email protected] and we will verify and update within 14 days.

这篇文章对您有帮助吗？ · Was this helpful?