Incoming Hague Judgments Convention will boost cross-border enforcement

On 1 July the Hague Judgments Convention, known as ‘Hague 2019’, will come into force. The international convention, formally the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (13 pages/371 KB), aims to provide a harmonised legal framework for the mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments on civil or commercial matters among the convention’s contracting states.

The UK government ratified the convention in July last year, but initially this only applied to England and Wales. In March 2025, the UK announced that its ratification had been extended to include Scotland and Northern Ireland and that the convention would come into effect on a UK-wide basis on 1 July.

The move is particularly significant in the UK’s post-Brexit legal landscape, given some well-established regimes for the cross-border enforcement of judgments between the UK and EU member states, and certain other countries, no longer apply to the UK.

Under the current regime, a party wishing to enforce a UK judgment in an EU member state will have to navigate that member state’s national laws on the enforcement of foreign judgments, unless it can rely on the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements (‘Hague 2005’). However, Hague 2005 is widely considered only to apply where there is a reciprocal or ‘two way’ exclusive jurisdiction clause – that is, a jurisdiction clause which binds both parties to a contract to litigating in a specified jurisdiction only.

Following Brexit, the Brussels I Regulation and the Lugano Convention, which include regimes for the cross-border enforcement of judgments, ceased to apply to the UK. The UK re-applied to re-join the Lugano Convention, but the EU has so far declined to allow the UK to do so. Hague 2019 is already in force for all EU member states except Denmark. The EU has argued that the Hague conventions should provide the appropriate framework for judicial cooperation between the UK and the EU going forward.

In April,  the UK government said Hague 2019 would streamline enforcement processes for businesses involved in cross-border deals and strengthen the UK’s position as a global hub for dispute resolution.

To date, contracting states have mostly been EU member states, but there a growing number of other states have also signed up to the convention. Hague 2019 entered into force in Uruguay in October 2024, and it has recently been ratified by Albania, Andorra and Montenegro. Several other countries, including the US and Russia, have signed the convention, but not yet ratified it.

Richard Dickman, a commercial disputes expert at Pinsent Masons, said the convention will give litigants greater confidence that judgments obtained in any of the UK’s courts will be more easily enforceable in more jurisdictions. “As well as its benefits in terms of enforcement in the EU, Hague 2019 is relevant for cross-border enforcement of judgments in or from a growing number of other countries globally who are joining this new international convention,” he said. “This is positive for businesses doing cross-border deals or engaged in cross-border disputes as, where the new convention applies, it will give them more confidence to litigate in courts in any one of the UK jurisdictions with greater certainty that the resulting judgment will be enforceable in another jurisdiction, usually where the counterparty is based or has assets.”

Emilie Jones, commercial litigation expert at Pinsent Masons, said that Hague 2019 is a particularly welcome development for those businesses which favour ‘asymmetric’ jurisdiction clauses in their contracts. Such clauses are often found in finance contracts and restrict one party to bringing proceedings in a single jurisdiction, while giving the other party the freedom also to bring proceedings in any other court that has jurisdiction.

“Since Brexit, such clauses have remained popular given the flexibility they provide, but they have been subject to some areas of uncertainty,” she said. “In particular, they have provided a less secure foundation for the cross-border enforcement in the EU of judgments given by UK courts where the relevant court has taken jurisdiction over the proceedings which give rise to the judgment pursuant to such a clause.”

Jones added that there has also been increased market uncertainty in the EU surrounding the desirability of asymmetric clauses following a recent ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), Societa Italiana Lastre SpA v Agora. The judgment recognised the validity of such clauses under the Brussels I Regulation but subject to specific criteria, including that the choice of courts must be limited to EU or Lugano Convention member states.

For some parties in some transactions, Jones said the judgment called into question whether asymmetric clauses still provide the appropriate balance of flexibility and certainty on issues of jurisdiction. “While the Lastre case did not relate to enforcement, it has also raised questions in some quarters about the enforceability of a judgment given pursuant to an asymmetric clause which does not meet the CJEU's criteria,” said Jones.

However, she added that Hague 2019 should offer some comfort on enforcement issues. “Hague 2019 is designed to cater for a range of situations, including those in which a judgment is given pursuant to an asymmetric jurisdiction clause,” she said. “It also aims to be a global convention, rather than accession being limited to EU or Lugano states. As a result, judgments given by courts which take jurisdiction under an asymmetric clause should be enforceable under Hague 2019 despite Brexit and regardless of any uncertainties to which the Lastre decision has given rise – provided, of course, that all the requirements of Hague 2019 are met."

Overall, while the coming into force of Hague 2019 is an important development to be welcomed, Jones sounded a note of caution: “Hague 2019 does have its limitations. While it is a positive addition to the enforcement landscape, it does not address questions of the allocation of jurisdiction between the courts of different states. Like most conventions, it is also subject to other restrictions in terms of scope, and to a variety of requirements and exceptions. And of course, since the convention is new, there may well be uncertainties and points of detail which will need to be worked out through case law in the coming years,” she said.