Enforcing a Foreign Judgment: Collecting Across Borders

A judgment is only as good as your ability to collect on it. Win in a foreign court but find the defendant's only assets sit in London, Hong Kong, Singapore or Sydney, and that piece of paper is worth nothing until a local court agrees to stand behind it. Cross-border enforcement is really a two-step problem: first you must get the foreign judgment recognised by the court where the money or property is, and only then can you reach for the ordinary enforcement tools against bank accounts, land and debts.

The stakes are mostly about route and time. Some regimes give you as little as 12 months to register a judgment; others give you six years. Choose the wrong route, miss the window, or try to enforce against someone the original court had no proper jurisdiction over, and you can lose the lot — often with an adverse costs order to show for the effort.

This guide explains the two enforcement routes — statutory registration under reciprocal regimes, and a fresh common-law action on the judgment debt — and sets out the governing rules in England & Wales, Hong Kong, Singapore and Australia, together with the common requirements every court applies and the defences a debtor can raise.

The two routes: registration vs a fresh action

Across all four jurisdictions, there are broadly two ways to enforce a money judgment obtained elsewhere.

Route one — statutory registration. Where the country of the original court has a reciprocal arrangement with the enforcing country, the creditor can register the foreign judgment in the local court. Once registered, the judgment is treated, for enforcement purposes, as if it had been given by the local court. This is faster and cheaper than litigating afresh: there is no new trial of the merits, only a check that the formal conditions are met. The catch is that registration is only open where the originating court appears on the relevant reciprocity list.

Route two — a common-law action on the judgment debt. Where no statutory regime covers the country of origin, the creditor sues in the local court on the foreign judgment itself. At common law a final foreign money judgment creates a debt that the local court will enforce, subject to the requirements below. In practice the creditor issues proceedings and then usually applies for summary judgment, because there is normally no defence to the merits — the foreign court has already decided them. It is slower and more expensive than registration, but it is the universal fallback.

The common requirements

Whichever route applies, the enforcing court is not re-trying the dispute. It asks a narrow set of gateway questions, and these are broadly consistent across the common-law world:

• Final and conclusive. The judgment must be final between the parties in the original court, even if an appeal is pending or possible.
• A fixed sum of money. The common-law route and the older statutory regimes enforce debts — a definite, ascertained sum. They do not directly enforce foreign injunctions or orders for specific performance, and they generally exclude sums for taxes, fines or penalties.
• International jurisdiction over the defendant. The original court must have had jurisdiction in the eyes of the enforcing court. At common law this means the defendant was present (or resident) in the foreign country when proceedings began, or submitted to that court — by agreeing in advance to its jurisdiction, by suing or counterclaiming there, or by appearing to defend on the merits. The mere presence of assets in the foreign country, or the claimant's nationality, is not enough. The leading authority is Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433.
• Not contrary to public policy or natural justice. The judgment must not offend the enforcing court's fundamental notions of justice, and the defendant must have had proper notice and a fair opportunity to be heard.
• Not obtained by fraud. A judgment procured by fraud — on the court or on the other party — will not be enforced.

Note the trap in the jurisdiction requirement. A defendant who appears only to challenge the foreign court's jurisdiction does not thereby submit; but a defendant who argues the merits, even in the alternative, usually does. If you are on the receiving end of a foreign claim and intend to contest jurisdiction, take local advice before filing anything — and see our note on a forum non conveniens stay for how courts decide which forum should hear a dispute in the first place.

England & Wales

Post-Brexit, the Brussels and Lugano regimes no longer apply, so England relies on a patchwork of older statutes, the common law and two Hague Conventions. The right tool depends on where the judgment came from and when proceedings were started.

The two statutory registration regimes

For older Commonwealth and Dominion judgments, registration runs under the Administration of Justice Act 1920, Part II. The creditor must apply to register within 12 months of the date of judgment, although the court has a discretion to allow a longer period (s.9(1)).

For a wider list of reciprocating countries, the principal modern registration statute is the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933. Here the window is far more generous: an application to register may be made within six years after the date of the judgment, or, where the judgment was appealed, the last judgment in the appeal proceedings (s.2(1)).

The common law

Where neither statute covers the country of origin — the United States is the obvious example — enforcement is by a fresh action on the judgment debt, applying the common-law requirements above. A fresh action is generally subject to a six-year limitation period, so do not let an enforceable foreign judgment grow stale.

The Hague Conventions

Two Hague instruments now sit alongside the domestic regimes. The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005 supports the enforcement of judgments given by a court chosen in an exclusive jurisdiction clause; the UK has been bound by it in its own right since 1 January 2021. The newer Hague Judgments Convention 2019 entered into force for the UK on 1 July 2025 — but only for judgments in proceedings commenced on or after that date. That cut-off matters: for proceedings begun before 1 July 2025, the 2019 Convention is simply unavailable, and you fall back on the 1920 Act, the 1933 Act or the common law.

Hong Kong

Hong Kong runs a similar dual structure, with one important addition for Mainland judgments.

Statutory registration: Cap. 319

The statutory registration regime is the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap. 319). As with the English 1933 Act on which it is modelled, registration is available for judgments from listed reciprocating jurisdictions, and the court checks the formal conditions rather than re-opening the merits.

Mainland judgments: Cap. 645

Enforcement of Mainland Chinese judgments has its own dedicated framework. The Mainland Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap. 645), together with its companion Rules (Cap. 645A), commenced on 29 January 2024. It gives effect to the Mainland–Hong Kong Arrangement on reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments and substantially widens the categories of Mainland civil and commercial judgments that can be recognised in Hong Kong, and Hong Kong judgments in the Mainland. If your judgment debtor's assets are across the boundary, this is the regime to look at first.

The common law

For judgments from countries outside the Cap. 319 list and outside the Mainland arrangement, Hong Kong applies the common-law action on the judgment debt, on the same final-and-conclusive, fixed-sum, jurisdiction, public-policy and fraud requirements set out above.

Singapore

Singapore recently simplified its statutory landscape, so older guidance can mislead.

Statutory registration: REFJA

Singapore now has a single statutory registration regime, the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act 1959 (REFJA, 2020 Revised Edition). The older Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act 1921 (RECJA) was repealed with effect from 1 March 2023, and its reciprocating Commonwealth countries were transferred into REFJA — so treat REFJA as the consolidated regime, not as one of two parallel statutes. REFJA was itself expanded from 3 October 2019 to cover a broader range of judgments. The time limit to apply for registration is six years after the date of the judgment (or the last appeal judgment) under s.4(1).

The Choice of Court Agreements Act 2016

Where the parties chose a court by an exclusive jurisdiction clause, the Choice of Court Agreements Act 2016 may apply. It implements the Hague Choice of Court Convention 2005, was enacted on 14 April 2016 and came into force on 1 October 2016. It provides a discrete recognition-and-enforcement pathway for judgments from designated courts under qualifying choice-of-court agreements.

The common law

For everything else, Singapore enforces foreign money judgments by a common-law action on the judgment debt, again applying the standard gateway requirements.

Australia

Australia's statutory regime is federal and comparatively clean.

Statutory registration: the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth)

The Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth), supplemented by the Foreign Judgments Regulations 1992 (Cth), governs registration. The Regulations list the reciprocating courts and countries, so the first step is always to check whether the originating court is scheduled. Where it is, the creditor applies to register within six years after the date of the judgment (or after the last appeal determination) under s.6.

The common law

For judgments from countries not covered by the Regulations — including, notably, the United States — enforcement in Australia is by a fresh common-law action on the judgment debt, applying the same final-and-conclusive, fixed-sum, international-jurisdiction, public-policy and fraud tests.

Defences a debtor can raise

Recognition is not automatic. A debtor served with a registration order, or sued at common law, can resist on grounds that mirror the gateway requirements:

• the original court lacked international jurisdiction over the debtor (no presence and no submission);
• the judgment is not final and conclusive, or is not for a fixed sum;
• the judgment was obtained by fraud;
• enforcement would be contrary to public policy;
• the proceedings were conducted in breach of natural justice — typically, the defendant was not given proper notice or a fair chance to be heard;
• the judgment has already been satisfied, or the registration application is out of time.

Under the registration statutes, a defendant served with a registration made without notice has a defined period in which to apply to set the registration aside on these grounds; the burden then falls on the debtor to make out the defence. At common law the same matters are pleaded as defences to the action on the debt.

Time limits at a glance

• England & Wales — AJA 1920: register within 12 months (extendable by the court), s.9(1).
• England & Wales — FJREA 1933: register within 6 years, s.2(1).
• Singapore — REFJA: register within 6 years, s.4(1).
• Australia — Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth): register within 6 years, s.6.

The lesson is to start early. The English 12-month window under the 1920 Act is unforgiving, and even where you have six years, a judgment debtor with notice and assets to move will not wait for you.

Mechanics once the judgment is recognised

Registration is typically sought by an application made without notice to the debtor, supported by a witness statement or affidavit. The supporting evidence usually exhibits a certified copy of the foreign judgment, confirmation that it is enforceable in the country of origin, the amount still outstanding, and — where the judgment is not in English — a certified translation. A court fee applies; because these change, check the current fee schedule for the relevant court at the point you file rather than relying on a figure you read months earlier.

Once the judgment is registered (or you have obtained a fresh local judgment at common law), you have the same enforcement armoury as any domestic judgment creditor. In England that includes charging the debtor's land and intercepting money owed to the debtor by third parties — see our guide to charging orders and third-party debt orders for how those work in practice. Where there is a real risk that assets will disappear before you can collect, a pre-emptive freezing order can hold the position; and if you cannot even locate the assets, a Norwich Pharmacal order can compel a third party — such as a bank — to disclose information that helps you trace them.

A practical sequencing point: in urgent cases the freezing order and asset-tracing steps often come first, before or alongside the recognition application, precisely to stop a debtor emptying the very accounts you are trying to reach.

Cross-border enforcement rewards getting the route right at the outset — confirming whether a reciprocal regime covers the originating court, checking the registration deadline, and lining up the evidence of jurisdiction and finality before you file. Ask CommonBench's Legal Chat to map your specific judgment to the right enforcement route across England, Hong Kong, Singapore or Australia, and to flag the deadlines and defences that apply to your facts.

---

This guide covers general principles of recognising and enforcing foreign judgments and is not legal advice. Procedure, fees, reciprocity lists and authority differ between courts and change over time. Check the current rules and the live fee schedule for your specific court before applying to register or enforce a foreign judgment.