This Practice Note sets out the application of the Administration of Justice Act 1920 (AJA 1920/the Act) for the registration and enforcement of foreign judgments obtained from superior courts in specified states and territories. The requirement to register the judgment with the High Court explained along with the conditions and procedure for registration. Insights are provided as to when an application for registration may be refused. The Practice Note also explains the effect of a registration order as well as providing guidance to set aside or stay the registration order. Note: The relevant sections for enforcement of judgments are AJA 1920, ss 9–14, sections 1–8 having been repealed. For guidance when enforcing a judgment of the courts of England and Wales outside the jurisdiction, see Practice Note: Cross-border enforcement of English judgments—principles. Definitions The following definitions are used in this Practice Note and are identical to those in AJA 1920, s 12(1): • original court—the court where the judgment was given • registering court—the court in which

This Practice Note considers the provisions in the Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980 (PTIA 1980) which impose restrictions on the enforcement of certain overseas judgments. The provisions act as an exception to the doctrine of obligation or comity that requires the courts of England and Wales (English courts) to enforce a foreign judgment given by a court of competent jurisdiction which imposes a duty or obligation on the defendant to pay the sum for which judgment is given. Background to the act The impetus for the passing of PTIA 1980 arose out of an aversion in the UK to the approach in the US to anti-trust matters which can result in multiple damages being awarded by the courts. When the act was passed by Parliament, the Secretary of State for Trade explained that it was: ‘to reassert and reinforce the defences of the UK against attempts by other countries to enforce their economic and commercial policies unilaterally on us’. Remit of the act When considering the remit of the act, it is

This Practice Note considers the common defences which may be raised in proceedings in the courts of England and Wales (English courts) in relation to a claim to recognise and enforce a foreign judgment. For the principles to be applied when seeking enforcement under the common law, see Practice Note: Enforcing foreign judgments—common law principles. To determine whether the common law applies for enforcement of the foreign judgment, see: Which regime applies to enforce a foreign judgment?—checklist. The common defences to enforcement of a foreign judgment Even when a judgment is prima facie enforceable in the English courts, it will not be enforced if the judgment debtor can establish that one or more of the defences to enforcement applies. The defences (which overlap) include the following: • it would be a breach of natural justice to recognise the judgment in England. For guidance, see: Breach of natural justice defence below • the foreign judgment was obtained by the fraud of the judgment creditor or the foreign court. For guidance, see: Fraud defence below • it would

This Practice Note considers the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments applying common law. It explains the requirement for new enforcement proceedings in England and Wales with the foreign judgment as the cause of action. The Practice Note sets out the conditions that need to be met and the common defences that may be raised in relation to a claim to recognise and enforce a foreign judgment. The Practice Note also considers the issue of whether security for costs is available and whether the court should grant a stay pending further court hearings in the foreign court. For guidance on the defences which may be raised to resist enforcement of a foreign judgment, see Practice Note: Enforcing foreign judgments—common law defences. To determine whether the common law applies for enforcement of the foreign judgment, see: Which regime applies to enforce a foreign judgment?—checklist. When is the common law used? When seeking to enforce a foreign court judgment in England and Wales, it is first necessary to identify which regime applies. There are a number of different

This Practice Note considers the position under common law as to whether a foreign judgment which is under appeal or has been varied or revoked can be recognised and enforced by the English courts. This Practice Note refers to three different decisions in the Motorola litigation. For ease of reference they are referred to as follows: • Motorola stay judgment—Jacobs J stayed enforcement of the English enforcement judgment under CPR 83.7 • Motorola revocation judgment—deputy judge’s decision revoking the English enforcement judgment under CPR 3.1(7) • Motorola appeal judgment—the Court of Appeal held that an application for relief from an English enforcement judgment, including a stay, should be made under CPR 40.8A rather than CPR 3.1(7) After the English enforcement judgment has been obtained Where an English judgment provides for enforcement of a foreign judgment, a question arises as to the status of that English judgment if the foreign judgment is appealed, set aside or revoked by the foreign court. The starting

This Practice Note considers the key issues in relation to the enforcement of guarantees in the context of a financing transaction, specifically, a transaction where a lender (which is most likely to be a bank) has made a loan to a corporate borrower which is guaranteed by a corporate entity in the borrower’s group (eg the parent company of the borrower or a subsidiary of the borrower). This Practice Note considers the following issues: • what is the nature of claim that a lender has against a guarantor? • how does a lender enforce a guarantee? • how do you enforce under a multi-guarantor guarantee? • are there any specific issues to note in syndicated transactions? • are there any specific issues when dealing with guarantees from individuals? The law governing guarantees is complex and sometimes inconsistent, accordingly this Practice Note is intended to provide a starting point from which a more detailed analysis can be undertaken. What is the nature of claim that a lender

This Practice Note considers the legal structure for the recognition and enforcement of international arbitral awards in Türkiye and provides examples from case law where necessary. Applicable legislation The Turkish arbitration regime, as well as the regulations regarding the recognition and enforcement of awards are based on the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985. The two pieces of legislation regulating the recognition and enforcement procedure are the Convention on the Recognition of Enforcement of Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention) and the International Private and Procedural Law (IPL) No. 5718. The New York Convention became effective in Türkiye by virtue of Law No. 3731 in 1991 and since then applies to recognition and enforcement requests made in Türkiye. The New York Convention as an international treaty has superiority over national laws based on Article 90 of the Turkish Constitution. Türkiye has limited the applicability of the New York Convention to recognise and enforce only arbitral awards: • rendered in a state party to the New York Convention, and

An introduction to the enforcement of arbitral awards in Washington, DC Parties to international arbitrations often choose Washington, DC, United States of America as the seat of their proceedings. It has the advantage of being located in a jurisdiction, the United States, which offers an arbitration-friendly legal regime and is a party to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention). In particular, the United States Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) establishes a ‘federal policy favoring arbitration’ and provides for limited review of arbitral awards. (Shearson/Am Exp, Inc v McMahon, 482 US 220, 226 (1987); AT&T Mobility LLC v Concepcion, 563 US 333, 345 (2011) (‘[O]ur cases place it beyond dispute that the FAA was designed to promote arbitration’.)). In addition, Washington, DC is often the seat of investment arbitrations. Investment arbitration concerns the resolution of disputes between host States and foreign investors. An investor’s right to pursue an investment arbitration claim against

Arbitration is the principal method by which parties around the world resolve disputes outside of court. Arbitration is founded on the consent of the parties. Commercial arbitration rights are usually based on an arbitration clause in a private contract. Investor-state arbitration rights are based on a treaty. Although arbitration parties have agreed to resolve their disputes outside of court, the courts can play an important role in making the arbitration effective. Most importantly, the courts can order a recalcitrant party to arbitrate or to comply with an arbitral award. This Practice Note addresses the judicial enforcement of international commercial arbitration awards in New York.. Enforcement in New York is normally a straight-forward matter. New York’s federal courts, which are the usual forum for enforcement, are experienced and well-versed in enforcing international arbitral awards. Enforcement is supported by a strong federal law policy in favour of arbitration, particularly international arbitration. See Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v Soler Chrysler-Plymouth,

Two or more judgments against the same debtor Once a judgment has been obtained the court, it will need to be enforced. See Practice Note: Which enforcement of judgment method should I choose? for a guide to the different enforcement options that may be available depending on your case. A number of specific methods of enforcement involve applying for a warrant:: • warrants of control—applicable where the judgment is for a sum of money • warrants of delivery—used to recover specific goods • warrants of possession—used to recover the possession of land CPR 83 governs warrants in general, covering general matters such as permission to issue, duration and priority. Warrants are dealt with specifically in CPR 83, Section IV. CPR 83.15, eg, deals with the procedure for requests for warrants of control and warrants for delivery. The only respect in which CPR 83 appears to cater specifically for the prospect of issuing only one warrant in respect of multiple judgments against the same debtor

ARCHIVED: this archived Practice Note is not maintained and is for background information purposes only. Further, some of the links may not direct you to the provisions as at the date the guidance in this Practice Note was published. Judgment enforcement and contempt proceedings for those who disobey—what do you need to know? The year 2016 has seen development—in the form of CPR revision/introduction—of the process of seeking to secure or enforce judgment debts by way of charging orders and applications of attachment of earnings. It has also seen a growing trend in the use of the court's powers to punish for contempt those who fail to obey its orders. In this review of 2016, we consider: • the new process for applying for charging orders under revised CPR 73 in force as of 6 April 2016—see below • the new process for applying for an attachment of earnings order under new CPR 89 in force as of 6 April 2016—see below • the court issuing a Senior Master's

This Flowchart considers how to enforce a judgment in a cross-border dispute within the EU. It only considers regulations applicable between EU Member States and therefore it does not consider any potential international conventions. In addition to the European procedures,