The Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters 2019 (the Hague Judgments Convention, or Hague 2019) provides for the international recognition and enforcement of judgments amongst contracting states.  When it comes into force for the UK, it will therefore provide a useful framework for the enforcement of UK judgements in other contracting states, and for the enforcement in the UK of judgments given by the courts of other contracting states.

Unlike the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005 (Hague 2005), which applies only to exclusive jurisdiction clauses and judgments given in disputes covered by an exclusive jurisdiction clause, Hague 2019 applies to judgments given in disputes governed by any jurisdiction clause which has the effect of conferring jurisdiction on the courts of a contracting state. Its scope is defined negatively, such that in effect it applies to judgments given pursuant to jurisdiction clauses not covered by Hague 2005.

Hague 2019 also applies to judgments where the contracting state’s courts took jurisdiction on a range of other bases, including:

• the habitual residence of the defendant; 
• a defendant’s place of business;
• a defendant’s submission to the jurisdiction; and
• the place of performance of a contractual obligation etc.

There are certain subject matters which are excluded from Hague 2019, including family law, defamation, insolvency and IP.  And there are limited grounds on which enforcement of a qualifying judgment can be refused by a contracting state, including fraud and public policy.

A further limitation of Hague 2019 is that it becomes relevant only once a judgment has been obtained from the courts of a contracting state, and enforcement is sought in a different contracting state. It does not provide for rules designed to avoid parallel proceedings or inconsistent judgments, and the question of “direct jurisdiction” (ie when the courts of a contracting state should take jurisdiction over a dispute or when they should cede it), is left to national legal systems. 

How does Hague 2019 compare to Hague 2005?  

Hague 2005 came into force for the UK as a member of the EU in 2015 and as a contracting state in its own right immediately following Brexit (there is some debate – not for here – over whether the UK has one continuous period of membership from 2015, or two separate periods).

Hague 2005 is narrower than Hague 2019 in two ways: 

(i) Hague 2005 applies only where there is an exclusive choice of court agreement between the parties; and 
(ii) Hague 2005 has wider subject matter exclusions (eg employment and consumer).

But in one significant way Hague 2005 is wider than Hague 2019: Hague 2005 provides for both the recognition and enforcement of qualifying judgments and for “direct jurisdiction” ie the circumstances in which the courts of contracting states should and should not accept jurisdiction over a particular dispute (where there is an exclusive jurisdiction clause).

Hague 2019 came into force for the UK on 1 July 2025.  It applies to judgments given in proceedings started on or after the later of the in force dates for the state whose courts have given judgment and the state in which enforcement is sought.

At the end of the post-Brexit transition period, the UK no longer had the benefit of the streamlined recognition and enforcement mechanisms provided for by the Recast Brussels Regulation.  Joining the Lugano Convention, to which the EU, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are all signatories, would have bridged that gap quite effectively, but the UK’s accession to the Lugano Convention requires the consent of all existing signatories and the EU has, so far, refused its consent, leaving businesses to navigate a more complex cross-border enforcement landscape.

Hague 2019 does not offer the comprehensive jurisdictional framework of the Lugano Convention, but nonetheless represents meaningful progress by providing streamlined recognition and enforcement mechanisms for qualifying judgments across contracting states.

For businesses navigating cross-border contractual relationships and disputes, Hague 2019 offers a real practical advantage when enforcement is anticipated in contracting states.  It provides a degree of assurance, particularly where the parties want to include a non-exclusive or asymmetric jurisdiction clause in their agreement.  Whilst Hague 2019 won’t resolve issues like parallel proceedings, or situations where a court takes jurisdiction improperly, it does give some comfort when it comes to enforcement of any ensuing judgment in contracting states.

The differences between Hague 2005 and Hague 2019 throw up some quirks which need attention if there is a chance they could apply to your contract or a subsequent dispute.  For example, if you have a judgment based on an exclusive jurisdiction clause in a matter excluded because of its subject from Hague 2005, you will not be able to rely on Hague 2019 to enforce the judgment (even it its subject matter is covered by Hague 2019) because Hague 2019 does not apply to judgments given pursuant to an exclusive jurisdiction agreement.  These nuances highlight the importance of careful thought and drafting when it comes to dispute resolution clauses.

Finally, perhaps because of its age, there are more Hague 2005 contracting states than there are Hague 2019 contracting states.  So as ever when considering a dispute resolution clause, it is important to think about where enforcement is likely to be needed.  If that analysis points to a country which is a party to Hague 2005 but not to Hague 2019, the parties might (all other things being equal) prefer to include an exclusive jurisdiction clause in their contract.