Enforcing Chinese court judgments in the United Kingdom: a practical guide

Jackson Ng MCIArb, Partner & Barrister at Duan & Duan UK LLP, explains the law and procedure for enforcing a People's Republic of China court judgment in England and Wales. Written for in-house counsel, insolvency practitioners, and overseas lawyers advising Chinese clients on recovery in the United Kingdom.

1. Overview

A successful plaintiff in a Mainland Chinese court often finds itself in the position of holding a judgment that is enforceable in the PRC but sitting against a defendant whose principal assets are in England. There is no bilateral treaty between the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China for the mutual recognition and enforcement of civil or commercial judgments. The Hague Judgments Convention 2019 entered into force for the United Kingdom on 1 July 2025, but as at April 2026 the PRC has neither signed nor ratified the Convention. It is therefore not a route for enforcement of Mainland PRC judgments into England and Wales, and is unlikely to become so in the short term.

That does not mean the judgment is unenforceable. The common-law rules on recognition of foreign judgments apply. They are well-established, they work, and the Commercial Court has recently confirmed — in Hangzhou Jiudang Asset Management Co Ltd v Kei [2022] EWHC 3265 (Comm) — that a final monetary judgment of a PRC court is enforceable as a debt in England on a CPR Part 24 summary-judgment application, subject to the conventional common-law preconditions.

This guide explains how the regime works, when it applies, what the defences are, and how the position differs for Hong Kong judgments and for PRC arbitral awards.

2. The common-law regime

In the absence of a treaty regime, the position is governed by the common law. A foreign money judgment is enforceable in England and Wales if, and only if, it meets four conditions:

1. Competent jurisdiction. The foreign court must have had jurisdiction over the defendant according to the English conflict-of-laws rules. That means either: (a) the defendant was present in the foreign jurisdiction at the time the originating process was served on it; or (b) the defendant voluntarily submitted to the foreign court's jurisdiction, by appearing to contest the substance or by agreement. The leading authority is still Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433 (Court of Appeal). A defendant who appears only to contest jurisdiction, or who takes no part at all in the foreign proceedings while absent from the jurisdiction, does not submit.

2. Definite sum of money. The judgment must be for a fixed or ascertainable sum. Non-monetary foreign judgments (for example, an order for specific performance or an injunction) are not enforceable at common law by an action on the judgment. Interest is capable of being a definite sum if the rate and mechanism are specified in the foreign judgment.

3. Final and conclusive. The judgment must be final and conclusive as between the parties on the issue it decides. A judgment that remains subject to review or re-opening in the foreign forum is not yet final in the relevant sense. A PRC judgment that has passed through the supervisory retrial filter, or where the relevant appeal period has elapsed, will normally meet this test.

4. Not impeachable. The judgment must not be impeachable on any of the recognised grounds: fraud in its procurement, breach of natural justice in the proceedings, contrariety to English public policy, or the specific statutory bars in section 5 of the Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980 (which disapplies certain foreign multiple-damages awards, but has no application to ordinary compensatory PRC judgments).

The rule set out above has been applied for decades; the Supreme Court revisited the jurisdictional limb in Rubin v Eurofinance SA [2012] UKSC 46; [2013] 1 AC 236, confirming (in the insolvency context) that foreign insolvency-related judgments are enforceable only if the ordinary Adams v Cape Industries tests are satisfied; there is no insolvency exception.

3. Hangzhou Jiudang — the leading English authority on PRC judgments

The most important recent development is Hangzhou Jiudang Asset Management Co Ltd v Kei [2022] EWHC 3265 (Comm), decided on 19 December 2022 by Sir William Blair (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) in the Commercial Court.

The defendant had been the subject of two final monetary judgments of primary People's Courts in Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province (subsequently disposed of on appeal to the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court). The claimant creditors brought a fresh action in the Commercial Court on each judgment, and applied for summary judgment under CPR Part 24.

The defendant raised two principal defences:

• Section 5 Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980. He argued that the PRC judgments contained an element of "double default interest" in the nature of a multiple-damages award, bringing section 5 into play. The argument was rejected: the PRC default-interest formula was not a "multiple" of single damages in the statutory sense; it was a discrete head of interest on a contractual debt.
• Penalty / public policy. He argued that the "double default interest" was a contractual penalty and so offended English public policy. That was also rejected on the facts: the interest was not a disguised penalty and did not offend English public policy.

Summary judgment was granted and the PRC judgments were enforced as debts in England. Hangzhou Jiudang is now the routinely-cited practitioner authority confirming that final monetary judgments of PRC courts are enforceable at common law in England and Wales, on a Part 24 application, provided the four common-law conditions above are met.

There is, at present, no successor English reported decision on enforcement of a Mainland PRC court judgment at common law. Practitioners should not cite Hebei Huaneng Industrial Development Co Ltd v Shi [2024] NZHC 3656 as English authority: it is a New Zealand High Court decision and may be used as comparative material only.

4. Practical procedure in the English courts

A claimant holding a qualifying PRC judgment should take the following practical steps.

4.1 Issue a fresh claim in the High Court

The creditor issues a Part 7 claim form against the judgment debtor in the Commercial Court or the King's Bench Division. The cause of action is debt: the PRC judgment is the source of the debt. The particulars of claim set out the PRC proceedings, the judgment, and the four common-law conditions. Certified translations of the PRC judgment and any ancillary orders are served.

4.2 Service out of the jurisdiction

Where the defendant is not present in England and Wales, the claimant must apply for permission to serve out of the jurisdiction under CPR 6.36 and CPR Practice Direction 6B paragraph 3.1(10) — the "enforcement of a foreign judgment" gateway. The application is made without notice, supported by evidence that (i) there is a real issue which it is reasonable for the court to try, (ii) England is the appropriate forum, and (iii) the common-law requirements appear to be met.

4.3 Summary judgment under CPR Part 24

Once the defendant has been served and has acknowledged service, the claimant applies for summary judgment under CPR Part 24. The test is whether the defendant has a real (as opposed to fanciful) prospect of defending the claim, and whether there is any other compelling reason for the case to go to trial. Where the four common-law conditions are plainly met and there is no substantive defence, summary judgment will normally be granted.

4.4 Enforcement steps after English judgment

Once an English judgment on the PRC judgment has been entered, the creditor has access to the full suite of English enforcement methods: third-party debt orders (CPR Part 72), charging orders over English real estate (Charging Orders Act 1979), writs of control (CPR Part 83), and interim and final freezing injunctions in appropriate cases. Those remedies are available against any English-situated asset of the debtor.

5. Defences

Even where the four preconditions are met, a defendant may in principle resist enforcement on one of the recognised defences. The practical experience is that these defences succeed rarely, and almost never in the case of a commercial money judgment of a Chinese Intermediate or High People's Court. Nonetheless, the framework is worth rehearsing.

Fraud in procurement. A judgment obtained by fraud is not enforceable. The English court will not go behind the merits of the foreign decision, but will receive evidence that, for example, documents forged in the foreign proceedings were material to the outcome.

Breach of natural justice. A judgment procured without the defendant having been given proper notice or a fair opportunity to be heard may be resisted. This engages, in practice, proper service of the PRC proceedings on a foreign-based defendant and whether that service complied with the law of the forum. Pure procedural differences between Chinese and English civil procedure do not, without more, amount to a breach of natural justice.

Public policy. A judgment whose enforcement would offend a fundamental principle of English justice is not enforceable. This is a narrow category. Factual differences of view between the two legal systems are not enough.

Statutory bars. Section 5 of the Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980 disapplies certain foreign awards of multiple damages. It is not engaged by ordinary PRC compensatory judgments, as Hangzhou Jiudang confirms.

For an example of the English court's engagement with the natural-justice and public-policy defences in a commercial dispute involving a Chinese bank, see Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor BV v Bank of China Ltd [2015] EWHC 999 (Comm) (Sir Bernard Eder). That case was not primarily about enforcement of a Chinese judgment, but it is a useful illustration of how the English Commercial Court approaches the defences framework where PRC proceedings form part of the relevant background.

6. Hong Kong judgments — a separate regime

Hong Kong judgments sit under an entirely different statutory regime. They are enforceable in England and Wales by registration under the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933, as extended to Hong Kong by the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments (Hong Kong) Order 1997 (SI 1997/2602). The Order survived the 1997 handover and remains in force.

In practical terms this means:

• The judgment creditor applies to register the Hong Kong judgment with the High Court, rather than issuing a fresh action on it.
• Registration is a significantly faster and cheaper procedure than the common-law action on the judgment that applies to Mainland PRC judgments.
• A registered Hong Kong judgment has the same effect as an English judgment.
• Similar defences (fraud, natural justice, public policy) are available on an application to set aside registration, but they are narrow.

The Hague Judgments Convention 2019 does not supersede this arrangement. The Hong Kong SAR is not itself a Contracting State under the Convention independently of the PRC, and the PRC has not ratified. The 1933 Act regime therefore continues to apply to Hong Kong judgments and is expected to do so for the foreseeable future.

7. PRC arbitral awards — the New York Convention regime

Where the dispute was resolved by arbitration in Mainland China (whether under CIETAC, BAC, SCIA, or an ad hoc arbitration seated in the PRC), the position is materially different and usually better for the award creditor. Arbitral awards are enforceable in the United Kingdom under sections 100 to 104 of the Arbitration Act 1996, which give domestic effect to the New York Convention 1958. The People's Republic of China acceded to the New York Convention on 22 January 1987 (with the commercial and reciprocity reservations); the Convention entered into force for the PRC on 22 April 1987.

In practical terms, the award creditor applies to the High Court to enforce the award as a judgment. The grounds on which enforcement may be refused are narrowly and exhaustively defined in Article V of the Convention and section 103 of the 1996 Act. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised that the New York Convention regime is pro-enforcement and that the Article V grounds are to be construed narrowly.

This route should always be considered where the relevant contract contains an arbitration clause. Even where PRC litigation has already commenced, it may in some cases be preferable to invoke the arbitration agreement (where one exists) rather than to rely on enforcement of the resulting court judgment in England.

8. What to do if you hold a Chinese judgment to be enforced in the UK

The steps below assume a final monetary judgment of a Mainland PRC court against a defendant with assets (or a principal place of business) in England and Wales.

1. Confirm the four common-law conditions are likely to be met. In particular: whether the PRC court had jurisdiction on English conflict-of-laws principles (presence or submission), and whether the judgment is final and conclusive (appeal periods elapsed or retrial procedures exhausted). English counsel will want contemporaneous evidence of service of the PRC proceedings on the defendant.

2. Obtain certified English translations of the PRC judgment, any ancillary orders and any appellate decisions.

3. Investigate the defendant's English-situated assets. This informs both the urgency and the likely enforcement strategy. Freezing injunction relief can be sought in appropriate cases to preserve the status quo while the substantive action on the judgment proceeds.

4. Consider whether any arbitration clause is in fact available as an alternative route under the New York Convention. That regime is narrower, faster, and less vulnerable to jurisdictional challenge.

5. Issue proceedings in the Commercial Court or King's Bench Division, serve out of the jurisdiction under PD 6B 3.1(10), and move promptly to summary judgment under CPR Part 24 once acknowledgement of service is received.

9. How we can help

Jackson Ng MCIArb, Partner & Barrister at Duan & Duan UK LLP, leads the firm's cross-border enforcement practice. He is admitted as a Solicitor of England and Wales, was called to the Bar of England and Wales in 2015, and is a member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. He is an Associate Member of 33 Chancery Lane Chambers, which is ranked by The Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners for financial crime and commercial litigation. He practises in English, Mandarin, and Cantonese.

Our cross-border enforcement work includes:

• Actions on Mainland PRC court judgments in the High Court (Commercial Court and King's Bench Division), including CPR Part 24 summary-judgment applications.
• Registration of Hong Kong judgments under the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933.
• Enforcement of PRC arbitral awards under the New York Convention (Arbitration Act 1996, ss.100–104).
• Freezing injunctions, third-party debt orders, charging orders, and onward enforcement steps.
• Cross-border asset tracing through corporate vehicles in England, Hong Kong, and offshore centres.
• Coordination with Mainland Chinese, Hong Kong, and offshore counsel across the Duan & Duan international network of more than 40 offices worldwide.

Contact: +44 20 3036 0264 · office@duanduanuk.com · Duan & Duan UK LLP, 2nd Floor East, Goldsmith Building, Middle Temple, London EC4Y 7BL.

Initial enquiries are without obligation and treated in strict confidence.

---

This article is a general guide only and does not constitute legal advice. Each matter must be assessed on its specific facts. Enforcement of foreign judgments is time-sensitive; prospective claimants should seek specialist advice without delay. 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).