The Hague Judgments Convention – a practical guide

Posted: 01/07/2025

1 July 2025 marks the entry into force of the Hague Judgments Convention 2019 in the UK (Hague 2019). The ambition of this latest convention from the Hague is huge. Combined with the earlier Hague Choice of Court Convention 2005  (Hague 2005), it represents the first global solution for enforcing (and recognising) court judgments around the world. However, while it has many significant signatories (including the United States and Russia for example), far fewer states have yet ratified (the process by which a state consents to be bound). Whether or not political tensions ultimately permit it to rival the scope of arbitral enforcement under the New York Convention remains to be seen. For now, it will have a major impact on the enforcement of judgments between the UK, the EU, and a number of other states. This article looks at the practical impact of the changes, and the steps parties need to take to get ready for the new regime.

Key takeaways

• Hague 19 applies to judgments in proceedings started after it has come into force in both contracting states. So for the UK, to judgments in proceedings issued after 1 July 2025.
• Hague 2019 applies to non-money judgments as well as monetary judgments. It does not, however, apply to interim measures (such as an injunction).
• Hague 2019 applies to judgments granted pursuant to non-exclusive or asymmetric jurisdiction clauses. It also applies where judgments derive from its other jurisdictional bases (listed below). It does not apply to judgments founded on exclusive jurisdiction agreements, which are governed by Hague 2005.
• The procedure for registering a judgment under the Hague 2019 in the UK will, broadly, be the same as for registering a judgment under Hague 2005.

The procedure

Where a judgment falls within the scope of Hague 2019, an application must be made to register it in the High Court pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 74.3 before it can be enforced. The application can be made without notice. The application must be supported by written evidence confirming that the judgment meets the requirements of Hague 2019. A 'Recommended Form' containing the required information is incorporated within the Explanatory Report. The process itself will be familiar to English lawyers as it largely replicates the existing processes to register foreign judgments under the Hague 2005. Article 12 of Hague 2019 provides that the court must be provided with:

• a certified copy of the judgment;
• in the case of a default judgment, a document proving that the defaulting party was notified of the document which instituted the proceedings; and
• any documents necessary to establish that the judgment has effect or, where applicable, is enforceable in the state of origin.

The court must register the judgment 'without delay', and if it meets the relevant criteria under Hague 2019, the judgment will be registered without any review of whether grounds to refuse registration exist. The applicant's reasonable costs or expenses of registration are recoverable and, once registered, the judgment is 'recognised' for the purposes of Hague 2019 and can be enforced in the same way as a judgment granted by the High Court.

The process is intended to be quick and efficient with minimal grounds to resist enforcement. The defendant (against whom enforcement is sought) cannot make submissions on registration. Instead, they can apply to set the registration aside.

Jurisdictional scope

The ways in which jurisdiction can be founded under Hague 2019 are much wider than Hague 2005. It is, therefore, potentially open to more challenge. Article 5 of Hague 2019 provides a list of jurisdictional filters (described as ‘bases’). If at least one of these bases is met, then the judgment may be recognised and enforced under Hague 2019. The full list of 13 bases can be viewed in the text of the convention here. Some key bases and potential challenges include:

• Article 5(a): the defendant’s habitual residence in the state of origin at the time proceedings were commenced. However, there is no definition in Hague 2019 of 'habitual residence', which may lead to satellite disputes.
• Article 5(m):  the parties’ agreement to the jurisdiction of the courts of the state of origin. However, this does not apply to exclusive jurisdiction clauses.
• Article 5(g): if a court in the state of origin rules on a contractual obligation and the place of performance of that obligation was the state of origin. This has no real equivalent as a concept under English law, and may therefore lead to disputes regarding its interpretation and applicability.
• Article 5(j): for tort claims where the damage was caused in the state of origin. However, this will not apply to intangible property, or to claims for pure economic loss. The rule is also based on the location of the act (or omission). It does not (in contrast to other conventions) provide for jurisdiction based on where the harm occurred.

If any of the bases set out in Article 5 are met, the judgment will become eligible for recognition and enforcement under Hague 2019.

Crucially, even if none of the jurisdictional bases are met, Article 15 of Hague 2019 'does not prevent' a contracting state from recognising or enforcing the foreign judgment if it would be enforceable pursuant to its domestic laws. In effect, Hague 2019 appears to allow countries to be more generous in relation to recognising and enforcing judgments if appropriate, while preserving a minimum level above which a judgment must be enforced.

Grounds for refusal to recognise or enforce

Article 7 of Hague 2019 sets out the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement. These are limited to the usual provisions seen in mutual enforcement treaties such as judgments obtained by fraud, or where recognition and enforcement would be manifestly incompatible with public policy. Judgments for exemplary or punitive damages may also be refused enforcement.

Key differences between the two Hague Conventions

The main difference between the two Hague Conventions is that Hague 2005 only applies to judgments granted pursuant to exclusive jurisdiction clauses.  Hague 2019, on the other hand, excludes such judgments from its scope. This is to prevent confusion or overlap between the two conventions. Provided one of the jurisdictional bases is met, however, the fact that jurisdiction was founded under an exclusive clause would not prevent the judgment from also being enforceable under Hague 2019.

A reason it may be preferable to enforce under Hague 2019 and not Hague 2005 is because the former has a greater temporal scope. While Hague 2019 only applies (as regards the UK) to proceedings issued after 1 July 2025, it applies regardless of the date any contract founding jurisdiction was entered into. By contrast, Hague 2005 only applies to judgments where the exclusive jurisdiction clause was entered into after Hague 2005 came into force for that state (either 2015 or 2021, depending on the possible perspective of the UK or EU courts).

Current and future contracting states

From 1 July 2025, Hague 2019 applies to the EU (excluding Denmark), Ukraine, Uruguay and the UK. From 2026, it will also apply to Montenegro, Andorra and Albania. States which have signed but not yet ratified include Costa Rica, Israel, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Russia and the US. While it is not necessary for contracting states to approve the accession of new countries, in the 12 month period following ratification (and before entry into force), an existing contracting state can declare that it will not apply to that country.

While initially the UK indicated it would apply only to England and Wales, it declared earlier this year that Hague 2019 would also apply to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Hague 2019 has secured a measure of success with its existing contracting states and it is hoped that more countries will accede. While Europe and Latin America are relatively well represented, it has had little uptake or interest from Africa or Asia. It is also not clear whether the US intends to ratify. Should it do so, this would mark a major change in the process of enforcement of US judgments in the UK, and vice versa. Currently, as there is no reciprocal treaty between the two countries, judgments can only be enforced via fresh proceedings, a much lengthier, complex and expensive process, and one subject to far greater challenge.

For more information on enforcement of foreign judgments, see our detailed country guides and transatlantic toolkit.

Return to news headlines