This Practice Note provides an insight into the enforcement of English or foreign judgments, settlement agreements and authentic instruments from the perspective of English court proceedings. For insights into considerations and issues which may arise in a foreign jurisdiction, the following may be of assistance: Enforcement guides—international Q&A guides—overview. What is being enforced? A party’s enforceable rights which it wishes to enforce may be set out in one of a number of different types of documents, being court judgments, tribunal judgments, settlement agreements or authentic instruments. The definitions of these types of documents differ depending on the enforcement regime under which enforcement is sought. For guidance on whether a document falls within the relevant definition, such that it is enforceable within the English courts, see Practice Note: Cross-border enforcement—what are judgments, settlement agreements and authentic instruments? Where the court judgment is a default judgment, specific consideration will need to be given to both the ability and the potential difficulties of enforcing such a judgment in another jurisdiction. For guidance, see Practice Note: Cross

This Practice Note provides a summary of the different types of documents that can be used to set out a party’s enforceable rights and which a party may wish to enforce. They are court judgments, tribunal judgments, settlement agreements or authentic instruments. When considering enforcement, it is important to be aware that: • the definition of the type of document being enforced can vary depending on the applicable enforcement regime under which enforcement is sought • prior to enforcement, the foreign document will need to be recognised by the enforcing court—depending on the applicable enforcement regime, there are various grounds on which a party may seek to resist the recognition of such foreign documents • enforcement can only take place if the document has been registered • specific considerations apply when enforcing a foreign judgment if it is res judicata. For guidance, see Practice Note: Res judicata and foreign judgments • different procedures apply when enforcing a settlement agreement or an authentic instrument as they do not involve judicial interpretation and

Key points • The client’s domicile will have a significant bearing on which law will govern succession to their estate . It is possible to change domicile, but will require careful planning and should be done as early as possible. • Whether the client should have one Will, separate Wills for each jurisdiction to which they have a tie, or no Will, will depend on all the circumstances • Advice should be sought from qualified practitioners in each jurisdiction to which the client has a property or family tie • Arrangements should be reviewed regularly, including whenever there is a change in the client’s circumstances Domicile Domicile is a legal status or kind of ‘personal law’ which links an individual to the laws of a particular jurisdiction. It is a separate concept to residence or nationality, but these two factors may be relevant in determining domicile. An individual is often domiciled where they have a permanent home, but not always. It is also possible for an individual to change their domicile, but they must be able to provide clear proof of any change. There

This Practice Note provides an insight into considerations and issues that may arise when dealing with evidence (documents) and disclosure in cross-border proceedings. These include managing a foreign client’s expectation, the impact, if any, of local laws in the jurisdiction in which the documents are located, data protection considerations, the control of documents outside England and Wales, disclosure requirements in relation to foreign language documents, including whether there is an obligation to provide translations, whether translations of documents can attract privilege, the use of technology, the use of documents disclosed in foreign proceedings, the obtaining of deposition/documentary evidence as well as considerations surrounding factual and expert evidence. Note, consideration will need to be given to any specific guidance set out in the court guide for the court in which the matter is proceeding. See: Court specific guidance below. In addition to the considerations set out in this Practice Note, the general rules for disclosure will also be applicable. For guidance, see: • Disclosure—overview • Disclosure Scheme (Business & Property Courts)—overview

This Checklist is of assistance when seeking to determine which cross-border evidence regime applies to obtain evidence from another jurisdiction for use in the courts of England and Wales or to obtain evidence in the courts of England and Wales for use in another country. In either case, the request for evidence must be to assist in court proceedings in the country in which the evidence is required. The Checklist identifies which countries are contracting parties to the Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters—more commonly referred to as the Hague Evidence Convention. A contracting state will have ratified, acceded to or succeeded to the convention. Different considerations arise when considering whether the Hague Evidence Convention applies: • the UK has extended the application of convention to a number of its territories eg Jersey, Gibraltar and the Cayman Islands, see: HCCH website—UK extensions • the UK and the other country must both be contracting parties to the convention • where the UK and the other country have

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note covers UK inheritance tax (IHT) issues in cross-border situations and deals with: actual and deemed domicile; double tax treaties and unilateral relief; the liability of personal representatives (PRs) to IHT and foreign inheritance or estate taxes. It also briefly mentions the impact of the changes to the taxation of non-domiciled persons which took effect from 6 April 2017 on estate planning, including the use of excluded property trusts. For the basics of IHT, see the Inheritance tax (IHT) subtopic. For information on IHT on estates, see the Estates—inheritance tax subtopic. The International Comparator tool is also a useful resource for comparing the tax and estate planning rules of several jurisdictions. A new residence-based regime for IHT from 2025–26 Prior to 6 April 2025, the concept of domicile determined an individual’s liability to IHT on foreign situs assets. Domicile was also a key factor in establishing whether the remittance basis could be applicable

On 6 April 2025, amendments to Part 25 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR 25) came into force. For guidance on the changes to Part 25 and Practice Directions 25A and 25B, see Q&A: Where can I find information on the changes to Part 25 coming into force on 6 April 2025? This Practice Note considers injunctive and declaratory relief in cross-border proceedings. The relief includes freezing injunctions (including proprietary freezing injunctions), anti-suit injunctions, preservation orders, imaging orders and declarations/declaratory relief (including negative declarations and declarations which may impact foreign proceedings). In addition to the considerations set out in this Practice Note, the general rules for injunctive and declaratory relief will also be applicable. For guidance, see: Interim and final injunctions—overview. Freezing injunctions A freezing injunction or order (formerly called a Mareva injunction, a term which may be seen in the older authorities) is an interim order which prevents the person subject to the order from dealing with or disposing of their assets in a way designed to prevent enforcement

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: In Vesnin v Queeld Ventures Ltd, the applicant sought recognition at common law for a Russian bankruptcy order and the appointment of a foreign representative as trustee in bankruptcy, and further assistance from the court. The respondent companies were allegedly controlled by the bankrupt/his wife. The respondents claimed to be the legal and beneficial owners of shares in a mining company, and were parties to related English proceedings. The respondents opposed the application on the basis that recognition was being sought as a springboard for asserting a proprietary claim against shares in the mining company. The court recognised the bankruptcy order and appointment as trustee, held that the respondents lacked standing as they had no legitimate interest in the bankruptcy, and directed that the applicant be joined to the other proceedings. This case helps practitioners better assess whether a client has the requisite standing, the grounds for opposing a recognition application, and shows the court’s willingness to assist an applicant in a cross-border insolvency. Written by Justin Perring, barrister at New Square Chambers.

The Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) has published the final report for its market review MR22/2.7 into cross-border interchange fees. The review confirms the PSR’s competition concerns and proposes a price cap. The PSR has also published consultation paper CP24/14, which seeks views on whether to introduce an interim cap on fees and at what level. Responses are sought by 7 February 2025.

This Agreement is made on [insert day and month] 20[insert year] Parties 1 [Insert name of first shareholder] incorporated in [insert the country of incorporation of the first shareholder] under number [insert company number] whose registered office is at [insert address] ([A]), and 2 [Insert name of second shareholder] incorporated in [insert the country of incorporation of the second shareholder] under number [insert company number] whose registered office is at [insert address] ([B]). 3 [Insert name of the joint venture company], a company incorporated under the laws of [insert the country of incorporation of the joint venture company] under number [insert company number] whose registered office is at [insert registered office address of the joint venture company] (the Company), BACKGROUND (A) At the date of this Agreement, the Company has in issue ordinary shares of [insert currency and nominal value of shares] each, of which one ordinary share has been issued fully paid and is registered in the name of[ A] and one ordinary share has been issued fully paid and is registered in the name of [B]. (B) The Company shall carry on business in accordance with the terms and conditions of this

With thanks to other contributors from Squire Patton Boggs offices across its global network. Cross-border JVs There is no ‘one size fits all’ approach when forming cross-border joint ventures (JVs) (ie where one or more of the JV parties is based outside the UK and they intend to form a JV outside the UK). The terms of any agreement must ultimately describe the commercial arrangement between the parties. However, many of the legal issues set out in this and the following Practice Notes: Cross-border joint ventures—taxation and funding issues, Cross-border joint ventures—management and control and Cross-border joint ventures—termination (together the Cross-border Joint Venture Practice Notes) may in fact influence the choice of jurisdiction for the JV entity, as well as the commercial deal itself, and should therefore be considered as early as possible to give the JV the best chance of success. Even if a joint venture agreement (JVA) has a familiar governing law, such as English law, establishing a cross-border JV can lead to unexpected

With thanks to other contributors from Squire Patton Boggs offices across its global network. Cross-border JVs There is no ‘one size fits all’ approach when forming cross-border joint ventures (JVs) (ie where one or more of the JV parties is based outside the UK and they intend to form a JV vehicle outside the UK). The terms of any agreement must ultimately describe the commercial arrangement between the parties. However, many of the legal issues set out in this and the following Practice Notes: Cross-border joint ventures—initial considerations, Cross-border joint ventures—taxation and funding issues and Cross-border joint ventures—termination may in fact influence the choice of jurisdiction for the JV entity, as well as the commercial deal itself, and should therefore be considered as early as possible to give the JV the best chance of success. Even if a joint venture agreement (JVA) has a familiar governing law, such as English law, establishing a cross-border JV can lead to unexpected and unfamiliar issues arising. Each