Cross-border enforcement—principles

Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis

This Overview sets out the principles to consider when seeking to enforce a parties rights in another jurisdiction. For an overview of guidance when seeking to:

  1. •

    enforce a judgment of the court of England and Wales in another jurisdiction, see: Cross-border enforcement—enforcing E&W judgments in another jurisdiction—overview

  2. •

    enforce a foreign judgment in England and Wales, see: Cross-border enforcement—enforcing a foreign judgment in E&W—overview

What is being enforced?

While most people will be aware that a court judgment can be used to enforce a party’s rights, as determined by the court, there are a number of different types of documents that can be used to set out a party’s enforceable rights. Each of these may be enforceable but different considerations apply depending on the type of document. They are court judgments, tribunal judgments or settlement agreements. For guidance, see Practice Note: Cross-border enforcement—what are judgments, settlement agreements and authentic instruments?

Default judgments

Default judgments can be recognised and enforced in the same way as any other form of judgment. However, it is important to be aware that there are specific considerations that will need to be taken

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Existing user? Sign-in TAKE A FREE TRIAL
Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Dispute Resolution News

Dispute Resolution weekly highlights—11 September 2025

This week's edition of Dispute Resolution weekly highlights includes: analysis of a number of key DR developments and key judicial decisions including the September 2025 update to the Chancery Guide and its accompanying Practice Note and the Court of Appeal decision in Farley v Paymaster (1836) Ltd (trading as Equiniti) (Information Commissioner intervening) (confidential information); dates for your diary; details of our most recently published content; and other information of general interest to dispute resolution practitioners.

Anti-suit injunctions and exclusion of liability (JP Morgan v Werealize)

Commercial analysis: The Commercial Court granted anti-suit injunction (ASI) relief to directors of Viva, a Greek fintech company, restraining JP Morgan (JPM) from pursuing tort claims against them in Greece, as such proceedings breached an implied obligation in a shareholders’ agreement (SHA) not to bring proceedings in jurisdictions where exclusion of liability provisions would not be effective. The court found that clause 33 of the SHA, which provided that ‘no party (nor any of its Representatives) shall owe any duty of care or have any liability in tort or otherwise to any other party (or its respective Representatives)’, contained an implied promise not to sue in jurisdictions that would not give effect to such provisions. The court rejected alternative ASI relief claims based on quasi-contractual arguments and vexatious conduct. This decision demonstrates how contractual immunity clauses can be enforced through ASI even against non-signatory third parties, providing important guidance for commercial drafters on extraterritorial enforcement of liability exclusions. Written by Parham Kouchikali (partner) and Natalia Faekova (Senior Associate) at Taylor Wessing LLP.

Bar report calls for new commissioner to tackle bullying

Law360, London: A formal independent review called on 8 September 2025 for the appointment of a new conduct commissioner and an overhaul of the complaints system to tackle bullying, harassment and sexual harassment at the bar amid rising levels of inappropriate behavior in the profession.

Leapfrog to Supreme Court approved (Re Waldorf Production UK Plc)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: Following the High Court's refusal to sanction the Part 26A restructuring plan (RP) for Waldorf Production UK Plc, Mr Justice Hildyard agreed to issue a leapfrog certificate allowing the Plan Company to appeal directly from the High Court to the Supreme Court. The Plan Company argued that the Court of Appeal's approach in Thames Water and Petrofac was wrong, arguing that out of the money (OOTM) creditors could fairly have their rights released for nominal consideration where they would be no worse off than in the relevant alternative.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :  
News
Practice notes
Precedents
Q&As

Popular documents

Applicable law—common law (contract)

Applicable law—common law (contract)This Practice Note considers when the common law of England and Wales is applied to determine the law applicable to contract claims. It sets out the process by which the courts of England and Wales will apply the common law to determine which law is applicable to

Forum non conveniens—principles

Forum non conveniens—principlesThis Practice Note considers the doctrine of forum non conveniens, also referred to as the appropriate forum or the proper place for a dispute to be determined. This doctrine is of relevance when determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction to

Jurisdiction agreements—exclusive jurisdiction agreements

Jurisdiction agreements—exclusive jurisdiction agreementsThis Practice Note considers exclusive jurisdiction agreements (also known as choice of court agreements). Specific considerations as to the construction, effect and enforcement of this type of jurisdiction agreements are discussed.For

Hague Service Convention—service outside the jurisdiction

Hague Service Convention—service outside the jurisdictionThis Practice Note considers the Convention on the service abroad of judicial and extra-judicial documents in civil or commercial matters (1965) (the Hague Service Convention). The convention applies between contracting parties and sets out
Applicable law—common law (contract)

Applicable law—common law (contract)

Applicable law—common law (contract)This Practice Note considers when the common law of England and Wales is applied to determine the law applicable to contract claims. It sets out the process by which the courts of England and Wales will apply the common law to determine which law is applicable to

Forum non conveniens—principles

Forum non conveniens—principles

Forum non conveniens—principlesThis Practice Note considers the doctrine of forum non conveniens, also referred to as the appropriate forum or the proper place for a dispute to be determined. This doctrine is of relevance when determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction to

Jurisdiction agreements—exclusive jurisdiction agreements

Jurisdiction agreements—exclusive jurisdiction agreements

Jurisdiction agreements—exclusive jurisdiction agreementsThis Practice Note considers exclusive jurisdiction agreements (also known as choice of court agreements). Specific considerations as to the construction, effect and enforcement of this type of jurisdiction agreements are discussed.For

Hague Service Convention—service outside the jurisdiction

Hague Service Convention—service outside the jurisdiction

Hague Service Convention—service outside the jurisdictionThis Practice Note considers the Convention on the service abroad of judicial and extra-judicial documents in civil or commercial matters (1965) (the Hague Service Convention). The convention applies between contracting parties and sets out