Home / News / Enforcing a Chinese contract in the UK: governing law, jurisdiction, arbitration, and the practical routes

Cross-border disputes

Enforcing a Chinese contract in the UK: governing law, jurisdiction, arbitration, and the practical routes

By Jackson Ng MCIArb · Partner & Barrister · 2 May 2026

For Chinese parties seeking to enforce a contract against a UK counterparty, English law and the English courts offer a clear, predictable framework. The right route depends on the dispute-resolution clause in the contract, the applicable law, and whether you already have a judgment or arbitral award. This guide explains the principal scenarios and the procedure for each. Jointly written by Jackson Ng MCIArb (Partner & Barrister) and Leon Chua (Partner) of Duan & Duan UK LLP.

Three principal scenarios

Most contract-enforcement situations fall into one of three scenarios:

Scenario Route Key authority
A. Contract gives English courts jurisdiction (or is silent, with UK defendant) Issue Part 7 claim in English courts Civil Procedure Rules; Companies Act 2006 s.1139
B. Contract has an arbitration clause Pursue arbitration; enforce resulting award in England Arbitration Act 1996 ss.100–104; New York Convention 1958
C. PRC court judgment already obtained Common-law action on the foreign judgment Hangzhou Jiudang Asset Management Co Ltd v Kei [2022] EWHC 3265 (Comm); see our enforcement pillar

Most UK-China contracts in our practice fall into Scenario A or Scenario B. Scenario C is the subject of a separate guide.

The threshold analysis: what does your contract say?

Before any enforcement step, the contract must be analysed under five headings.

1. Governing law

The contract may specify English law, PRC law, Hong Kong law, or another law. The English court applies the Rome I Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 593/2008) as retained in UK domestic law after Brexit (with minor modifications) to determine the applicable law:

  • Express choice of law is given effect if validly made.
  • No choice — the contract is governed by the law of the country with which it is most closely connected, typically the country in which the party who performs the characteristic obligation has its habitual residence.

For a sale of goods contract, the seller's habitual residence is normally the closest connection. For a distribution agreement, the distributor's habitual residence often is. Where neither side imposed its preferred governing law in negotiations, the contract may end up governed by PRC law (where the seller is in China) or by English law (where the buyer or distributor is in the UK).

Critical point: governing-law analysis is a question of substantive contract law. English procedural law (jurisdiction, service, disclosure, evidence, costs, limitation) applies in English court proceedings regardless of the governing law of the contract.

2. Jurisdiction

The contract may specify exclusive or non-exclusive jurisdiction:

  • Exclusive English jurisdiction. English courts will accept jurisdiction; foreign court proceedings would be in breach.
  • Exclusive PRC jurisdiction. English courts will normally honour the clause and stay any English proceedings, but retain residual jurisdiction over interim relief.
  • Non-exclusive jurisdiction. Choice of forum is open, subject to forum conveniens analysis where multiple forums are available.
  • No jurisdiction clause. Jurisdiction is determined by the general rules — for a UK-resident defendant, English jurisdiction is available as of right.

3. Dispute resolution

Separate from jurisdiction, the contract may contain an arbitration clause (CIETAC, BAC, HKIAC, LCIA, ICC, or another). An arbitration clause overrides court jurisdiction:

  • A party that issues court proceedings in breach of the arbitration clause will face a stay under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 if the defendant applies in time.
  • Court jurisdiction over the substance is displaced, but the courts retain jurisdiction over interim relief in support of arbitration (under sections 42–44 of the 1996 Act) and over enforcement of any resulting award (under sections 100–104).

The threshold question on any contract enforcement: is the route arbitration or court?

4. Limitation

The principal English limitation periods:

  • Six years for ordinary contract claims from the date the cause of action accrued.
  • Twelve years if the contract was executed as a deed.
  • Six years for a debt claim from the date payment fell due.

Where PRC law is the governing law and the relevant limitation period is shorter under PRC law, English courts apply the law of the forum (English law) to procedural questions including limitation, subject to specific carve-outs under the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984.

5. Quantification

What are you claiming? Liquidated debt? Damages for breach? Specific performance? Injunctive relief? Each has its own evidential and procedural requirements.

Scenario A: enforcement through English court litigation

Where the contract is suitable for English court litigation — English jurisdiction (express, non-exclusive, or by default), no arbitration clause, UK-resident defendant — the procedure is the standard English commercial-litigation route.

The starting point is the pre-action protocol (the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims for ordinary commercial debts, or the general Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct). A Letter Before Action sets out the claim and gives the defendant a defined period (often 30 days) to respond.

Proceedings are issued in the Business and Property Courts of the High Court (Commercial Court for international commercial disputes; Chancery Division for company / corporate matters; King's Bench Division for general civil), or in the County Court for lower-value matters.

Service on a UK company is at its registered office under section 1139 of the Companies Act 2006. No Hague Service Convention complication arises.

Default judgment under CPR Part 12 if the defendant fails to defend; summary judgment under CPR Part 24 where the defence has no real prospect; trial in cases that genuinely turn on disputed evidence.

Interim relief (freezing orders, Norwich Pharmacal orders, search orders, springboard or restrictive-covenant injunctions) is available throughout.

For a more detailed step-by-step guide to running the procedure, see our companion piece Suing a UK distributor or business from China.

Scenario B: arbitration and New York Convention enforcement

Where the contract contains an arbitration clause, the route is fundamentally different.

Pursuing the arbitration

The claimant pursues the arbitration in accordance with the contract's chosen arbitral rules and seat. Common choices for UK-China contracts:

  • CIETAC (Beijing or other PRC seats) — for PRC-side disputes.
  • HKIAC (Hong Kong) — neutral, well-respected, NY Convention enforceable in both UK and PRC.
  • LCIA (London) — the LCIA's enforceable awards are particularly strong for UK-China disputes where the parties want neutral seat with English procedural support.
  • ICC (International Chamber of Commerce, Paris) — a global standard for high-value international disputes.

Enforcement of the award in England

Once an arbitral award is made, it can be enforced in England under sections 100 to 104 of the Arbitration Act 1996, which give effect to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958.

China acceded to the New York Convention on 22 January 1987 with the standard commercial and reciprocity reservations. The Convention entered into force for the PRC on 22 April 1987. The Convention has 172 contracting parties at the time of writing, including the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China.

The procedure for enforcement of a Convention award in England:

  1. Application for permission to enforce under section 101 of the 1996 Act. The application is normally made on paper, supported by:
    • the original award (or a duly certified copy);
    • the original arbitration agreement (or a duly certified copy);
    • certified English translations where the documents are in Chinese.
  2. Permission is granted unless the respondent demonstrates one of the limited grounds for refusal under Article V of the Convention / section 103 of the 1996 Act. These grounds are:
    • the arbitration agreement was invalid;
    • the respondent was not given proper notice or unable to present its case;
    • the award deals with matters not within the scope of the arbitration agreement;
    • the tribunal's composition or arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the parties' agreement;
    • the award has not yet become binding, or has been set aside or suspended in the country in which it was made;
    • the subject matter is not capable of arbitration under English law;
    • enforcement would be contrary to English public policy.
  3. Once permission is granted, the award is enforceable as if it were an English judgment, with the full English enforcement toolkit available.

The English courts have repeatedly emphasised that the New York Convention regime is pro-enforcement: the Article V / section 103 grounds are construed narrowly, and refusal of enforcement is reserved for cases where one of the specific grounds is clearly made out.

In our experience, Chinese arbitral awards from major institutions (CIETAC, BAC, SCIA) are routinely enforced in England without serious challenge, provided the procedural fundamentals are sound.

Scenario C: pre-existing PRC court judgment

Where the Chinese party has already obtained a judgment from a PRC court, the route in England is the common-law action on the foreign judgment. The procedure is set out in our separate guide Enforcing Chinese Court Judgments in the United Kingdom.

The leading English authority is Hangzhou Jiudang Asset Management Co Ltd v Kei [2022] EWHC 3265 (Comm), which confirmed that final monetary judgments of PRC courts can be enforced as debts in England on a CPR Part 24 summary judgment application, subject to four common-law conditions (competent jurisdiction in the English conflict-of-laws sense; definite sum; finality; no impeachment for fraud, breach of natural justice, or contrariety to public policy).

Strategic considerations: which route is best?

Where the contract has not yet been litigated, the choice between English court litigation and arbitration is one of the most important strategic questions.

English court litigation may be preferable where:

  • The defendant is in the UK and has UK-situated assets;
  • The dispute turns on a clear-cut commercial point with a high prospect of summary judgment;
  • The claimant wants the deterrent effect of public proceedings;
  • Costs recovery from the loser is important (English courts shift costs to the loser; arbitration generally does not, or only partially);
  • Robust interim relief is needed (freezing orders, search orders, Norwich Pharmacal orders).

Arbitration may be preferable where:

  • The defendant has Chinese assets and enforcement back into China is the likely endgame (NY Convention enforcement in PRC courts is more reliable than common-law enforcement of a foreign court judgment);
  • The dispute is technical and would benefit from a specialist tribunal;
  • Confidentiality is important;
  • The contract already specifies arbitration (in which case the choice has been made);
  • Speed is important (arbitration can be faster than the Business and Property Courts in some cases).

Cross-border enforcement endgame is often the decisive factor. Where the UK defendant has assets only in China, an English court judgment can be difficult to enforce in PRC courts. By contrast, a New York Convention arbitral award is enforceable in PRC courts as a matter of treaty obligation, subject only to limited refusal grounds.

For Chinese parties drafting new contracts with UK counterparties, the choice of arbitration is often made for this reason. For Chinese parties seeking to enforce an existing contract that specifies court jurisdiction or is silent, the choice is partly already made.

Costs, timing and practicalities

Indicative timing for each scenario:

Scenario Time from instruction to enforceable judgment/award Indicative cost range
Court litigation, undefended 3–6 months Low
Court litigation, summary judgment 6–12 months Medium
Court litigation, contested trial 12–24+ months High
Arbitration, undefended 6–12 months Medium
Arbitration, contested 12–24 months Medium-High
NY Convention enforcement 3–9 months from arbitral award Low-Medium
PRC judgment enforcement (Scenario C) 6–12 months from instruction Low-Medium

Cost estimates depend heavily on case complexity, value, and the conduct of the opposing party. We provide written costs estimates at the outset.

Practical points for Chinese claimants

Documents. English courts (and arbitral tribunals) want primary evidence — signed contracts, purchase orders, delivery notes, invoices, payment records, email correspondence, WeChat / WhatsApp messages. We routinely deal with cases where the documentary record is in Chinese; certified English translations and proper authentication are part of the workflow.

Witness evidence. Witness statements are taken in writing. For trial cross-examination, attendance is sometimes required but increasingly large parts of trial are conducted by video link. The judge's permission is required for remote evidence at trial.

PRC-side documents. PRC data-export and state-secrets laws can constrain what can be sent abroad in litigation. We work with PRC counsel to identify the proper route, including specific consents from PRC authorities where required.

Currency. Judgments in English law may be entered in foreign currencies including RMB. The court directs the basis on which currency conversion is made on enforcement.

Sanctions and counterparty checks. Where the UK counterparty is in a regulated sector (banking, defence, dual-use technology), sanctions and export-control screening forms part of the case strategy.

What we do

Jackson Ng MCIArb (Partner & Barrister) and Leon Chua (Partner) lead the firm's contract-enforcement practice for Chinese parties. Jackson focuses on cross-border disputes and asset recovery, including the New York Convention enforcement route and the common-law action on foreign judgments. Leon leads the Commercial Court and Chancery Division litigation. Consultations are available in English, Mandarin or Cantonese.

Services include:

  • Threshold analysis — governing law, jurisdiction, dispute-resolution clause, limitation, prospects.
  • Court litigation — Pre-Action Protocol, Part 7 claims, default and summary judgment, trial, post-judgment enforcement.
  • Arbitration support — interim relief in support of arbitration, evidence in arbitration, post-award enforcement.
  • NY Convention enforcement of Chinese arbitral awards under sections 100–104 of the Arbitration Act 1996.
  • Common-law enforcement of PRC court judgments — see our enforcement pillar.
  • PRC-side coordination with the wider Duan & Duan international network of more than 40 offices.

Contact

To instruct the firm or for an initial confidential conversation:

Initial enquiries are without obligation and treated in strict confidence.

This guide is general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Each contract enforcement situation must be assessed on its specific facts, including the contract terms, governing law, applicable limitation periods, and the parties' positions. Duan & Duan UK LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales (OC427307), authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA number 659252).

← Back to News