Introduction
Over the last few years, an ever-increasing number of individuals from East Asia, particularly China, Hong Kong, and Singapore, have begun to buy and hold assets in England and Wales.
A recent study showed that Hong Kongers, Singaporeans and Chinese individuals accounted for approximately 27% of all internationally owned property in England and Wales. This number alone amounts to over £22 billion in assets. When we begin to account for assets such as stocks and cash in bank accounts, the value reaches astonishing numbers. The prevalence of East Asian individuals holding assets abroad has created problems though for litigation arising from the region. Creditors often find that the assets needed to satisfy their debt are beyond the jurisdiction of the litigation. This has forced an increasing number of creditors to pursue recognition and enforcement proceedings, particularly in England and Wales.
While this may appear to be a daunting process, England and Wales has a well-established procedure for recognising and enforcing judgments or awards. The favourable attitude of the English courts towards enforcement has been repeatedly shown in cases such as Qing Li & Ors v Fan Demetris Yuan & Anor [2026] EWHC 272 (Comm). The defendants in the case sought to evade enforcement by claiming the Chinese District courts lacked jurisdiction as they had relocated to Cyprus. Despite this, the High Court found in favour of the claimant and allowed enforcement of the Chinese judgment.
The case illustrates the lack of tolerance English courts have towards debtors who hide their assets in England and Wales while seeking to evade enforcement on technical grounds.
Enforcement of judgments from the PRC and Hong Kong
Enforcement of judgments from the People’s Republic of China (the “PRC”) and Hong Kong in England and Wales must be pursued at common law. The criteria for enforcement of a foreign judgment has long been established: (1) the judgment must be final and conclusive; (2) the judgment must be from a court which English law regards as competent; and (3) the judgment must be for a fixed sum of money.
Procedure
The procedure for enforcement of a foreign judgment at common law is relatively straightforward. Provided the above criteria is met, the creditor will need to issue a fresh part 7 claim and apply for service out of the jurisdiction, if necessary, pursuant to CPR 6.36, and Practice Direction 6B paragraph 3.1(10). Given that the debt is the cause of action, the particulars of claim should set out the PRC proceedings and judgment and establish that the conditions for enforcement at common law are satisfied. Certified translations of the PRC judgment should also be obtained. The creditor should then apply for summary judgment under CPR Part 24, the test for which is whether the defendant has a real as opposed to fanciful prospect of defending the claim.
In principle, defendants may raise a number of defences, though they are narrow in practice. Defendants will need to establish fraud in procurement, a breach of natural justice, public policy or a statutory bar. Caselaw indicates the English courts adopt a relatively conservative approach to such defences, and that broad strokes public policy arguments are unlikely to succeed. Hangzhou Jiudang Asset Management Co Ltd & Anor v Kei also affirmed that ordinary PRC compensatory judgments do not engage Section 5 of the Protection of Trading Interests Act 1990, which disapplies multiple damages.
Enforcement of Singaporean judgments
Enforcement of Singaporean judgments may be governed by the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005 (the “Hague Convention”). Under this regime, English courts will recognise and enforce judgments from Singapore, subject to limited grounds of refusal, provided that there is an exclusive choice of court agreement concluded after 1 October 2016, the date of entry into force. The judgment must be final and enforceable in Singapore.
Where there is no exclusive court agreement, enforcement may be pursued through the Administration of Justice Act 1920 (the “AJA 1920”), a statutory framework which applies to the enforcement of final sum judgments from Commonwealth states. Under the AJA 1920, creditors should apply for registration of the foreign judgment within 12 months. Once registered, the judgment is granted the same force as an English judgment. As above, judgments must be final and conclusive and for a specified sum, and the Singaporean court must have had competence.
Enforcement at common law remains an alternative avenue where there is no exclusive choice of court agreement, and over 12 months have lapsed from the date of the Singaporean judgment.
Recognition and Enforcement of East Asian Arbitral Awards
For a significant period of time, the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (“HKIAC”) and Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”) were the two dominant arbitration institutions in East Asia. However, since the emergence of China as a dispute resolution hub, several China-based arbitral institutes, such as the Shanghai Arbitration Centre (“SHAC”) and the Shanghai International Arbitration Centre (“SHIAC”), have begun to challenge the HKIAC and SIAC stronghold over arbitration proceedings in the East Asian region.
Despite the range of arbitral institutes now available in East Asia, the procedure for recognition and enforcement of awards in England and Wales is a mostly uniform process, regardless of the centre. Since the creation of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”) 1959, the convention has been signed and adopted by virtually every jurisdiction in the world, including China, Singapore, and Hong Kong. The New York Convention sought to streamline the process for parties to enforce awards across borders and obtain recovery, thereby preventing individuals from hiding assets behind jurisdictional barriers. Article III of the New York Convention obliged contracting states to recognise and enforce foreign arbitral awards. In England and Wales, the party holding the award can rely on it to apply and obtain an order in their favour. Upon doing so, Section 66 of the Arbitration Act 1996 permits the award to be enforced as if it was a judgement or order.
Although the New York Convention was designed to create a pathway for parties to recognise awards, resisting enforcement is still a possibility. Article V(1) permits domestic courts to refuse recognition and enforcement on various grounds such as a defective arbitration agreement and due process failures. Additionally, Article V(2) grants domestic courts discretion in determining if awards should be refused on public policy grounds or that the original subject matter is not arbitrable in the enforcing state. Obtainment of an award is often the end of a lengthy and gruelling process, but caution and diligence are still required during the recognition and enforcement process.
Talk to Eldwick Law
Eldwick Law has extensive experience advising individuals and businesses in relation to both enforcing and resisting enforcement of judgments and arbitral awards in England and Wales. If you or your business may be or are involved in enforcement proceedings, please get in touch with our dispute resolution lawyers.
Our Cases
- Defended the recognition and enforcement of a Shanghai International Arbitration Centre (SHIAC) award in the UK
- Helped defend against a multi-million-pound common law debt claim against a very high net worth Chinese national originating from two judgments in China
- Bruno Arboit -v- Kei Kin Hung [2024] EWHC 3399 (Ch) – Successfully contested the recognition of an over £1 billion Hong Kong bankruptcy under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006. Utilised Article 21 of the UNCITRAL Model Law by demonstrating that the Joint Trustees had used material potentially in contempt of court
- Defended a very high net worth Chinese client against civil and criminal contempt proceedings due to the policing of freezing injunctions and representations regarding the client’s capacity to litigate. Local proceedings arose out of arbitration and litigation proceedings in both Hong Kong and Mainland China.
- Acting for an ultra high net worth individual in a common law debt claim in excess of £800 million, arising out of a judgment from China
Leave a Reply