Suing a UK distributor or business from China: a cross-border jurisdiction and procedure guide

English commercial law and the English courts are well set up to handle UK-China cross-border disputes. Where you are a Chinese claimant — supplier, manufacturer, principal — and your UK distributor or business counterparty is in breach, you can pursue the claim in the English courts and run the litigation entirely from China. This guide explains the jurisdictional, governing-law, service, and procedural framework. Jointly written by Jackson Ng MCIArb (Partner & Barrister) and Leon Chua (Partner) of Duan & Duan UK LLP.

Why sue in England and Wales?

For a Chinese claimant against a UK-resident defendant, the English courts are the natural choice in most cases:

• The defendant is here. UK courts have general jurisdiction over UK-domiciled defendants. There is no foreign-court hurdle to clear.
• English procedure is creditor-friendly for clear-cut commercial claims. Default judgment, summary judgment, statutory interest, and recoverable costs are well-developed mechanisms.
• Enforcement is direct. A judgment of the English court can be enforced immediately against the defendant's UK-situated assets without any further enforcement step.
• Interim relief is robust. Freezing orders, search orders, Norwich Pharmacal orders, springboard injunctions and similar remedies are well-established and can be obtained quickly.
• English contract law is predictable. Even where the underlying contract is governed by PRC law, English courts can apply foreign law on properly-pleaded evidence — but most UK-China commercial contracts in our practice are in fact governed by English or Hong Kong law, particularly where a UK exporter or distributor is on the counterparty side.

The five threshold questions

Before issuing proceedings, our analysis turns on five threshold questions.

1. Jurisdiction: do the English courts have jurisdiction over the defendant?

For a UK-domiciled corporate defendant — a UK company, an LLP, or a UK-incorporated entity — the English courts have general jurisdiction as of right. The claimant does not need permission to serve, does not need to plead a gateway, and does not need to satisfy the forum conveniens test. The defendant can be served at its registered office under section 1139 of the Companies Act 2006.

Where the contract contains a jurisdiction clause:

• An English exclusive jurisdiction clause is honoured in the ordinary course; only narrowly-defined circumstances allow proceedings elsewhere.
• A PRC exclusive jurisdiction clause will normally be honoured by the English court, which will stay any English proceedings brought in breach. The English court will nevertheless retain residual jurisdiction over interim relief.
• A non-exclusive English jurisdiction clause allows the claimant to choose between English and other available jurisdictions.

2. Applicable law: what law governs the contract?

The English court applies the Rome I Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 593/2008) as retained in UK domestic law after Brexit (with minor modifications). The principal rules:

• An express choice of law is given effect if validly made.
• If no choice has been made, the contract is governed by the law of the country with which the contract 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 is often the closest connection.
• Mandatory rules of the law of the forum (English law) and overriding mandatory rules of other countries with a close connection can sometimes displace the chosen law.

In practice, most of the UK-China contracts we see are governed by English law (where the UK side has been the better-resourced negotiator), or Hong Kong law (where parties wanted neutrality). PRC-law contracts arise less often, but when they do, English courts can and do apply PRC law as the governing law of the contract with expert evidence from PRC counsel.

3. Service: how do we get the proceedings to the defendant?

Service of proceedings on a UK company is at its registered office under section 1139 of the Companies Act 2006. No Hague Service Convention process is required — the defendant is in England.

For UK-resident individuals (sole traders, individual directors), service is at the last known residential address.

Where the contract identifies a UK process-of-service agent, service on that agent is the proper route.

The single biggest practical service issue we see in UK-China cases is the defendant having moved or struck off — but Companies House records make this easy to verify before issue.

4. Limitation: how long do we have?

The principal limitation periods in English contract law:

• Six years for a contract claim from the date the cause of action accrued (typically the breach).
• Twelve years if the contract was executed as a deed.
• Six years for a debt claim from the date payment fell due.
• Six years for a tort claim from the date of damage (with extensions for fraud or concealment).

Limitation is a substantive defence in English law and runs strictly. A pre-action protocol exchange does not stop time — only issuing proceedings does. Where a contract is several years old and the breach is not fresh, an immediate limitation analysis is essential.

5. Costs and risk: is it worth it?

England has a costs-shifting regime — the losing party pays a substantial proportion of the winner's reasonable costs. For a successful claimant on a clear-cut commercial claim, recovered costs typically run at 60–80% of the costs actually incurred.

Where the defendant has limited assets, costs recovery may be partial in practice. Pre-issue investigation of the defendant's UK-situated assets — Companies House, charges register, real estate registry — informs the cost-benefit analysis.

For more substantial claims, after-the-event (ATE) insurance and third-party funding can manage adverse cost risk. We can introduce funders and ATE brokers where the case warrants it.

How proceedings run in practice

Once the threshold analysis is complete, the procedural sequence for a typical commercial case:

1. Pre-action correspondence. Either the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (where it applies) or the general Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct. Letter Before Action setting out the claim, the relief sought, and an offer of ADR.
2. Issue of the claim. Part 7 claim form 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 a County Court court depending on value.
3. Service. As above.
4. Acknowledgement of service / defence. 14 / 28 days respectively.
5. Default or summary judgment where the defendant fails to defend or has no real prospect.
6. Disclosure — both sides exchange documents in scope. Often substantial in commercial cases involving cross-border supply chains.
7. Witness evidence — written statements followed by cross-examination at trial.
8. Expert evidence — typically applied to specific technical issues (PRC law, accountancy, technical product features).
9. Trial — typically 5–15 days for a contested commercial case in the Business and Property Courts.

Running the case from China

A Chinese claimant does not need to be in England for most of the litigation:

• Pre-action and pleadings work is handled by us in London on your written instructions.
• Case management conferences and most procedural hearings are conducted by video as standard.
• Disclosure can be managed remotely — we handle the document review side; you provide the Chinese-side documents and witnesses.
• Witness evidence is taken in writing first; remote depositions are common for case management.
• Trial cross-examination of key witnesses sometimes requires personal attendance, but increasingly large parts of trial are conducted by video. The judge's permission is required for remote evidence at trial; permission is given where the practicalities and the witness's location justify it.

For Chinese claimants we routinely act as the address for service and as the formal claimant-side correspondent through the proceedings.

Interim relief: protecting your position before trial

Where the case warrants urgency — risk of asset dissipation, ongoing breach of restrictive covenants, threatened destruction of evidence — English law offers a strong toolkit:

• Worldwide and domestic freezing orders to preserve assets. The threshold is the American Cyanamid test plus a real risk of dissipation.
• Norwich Pharmacal orders for disclosure from third parties (banks, business counterparties, online platforms).
• Search orders to preserve evidence.
• Springboard injunctions restraining post-termination unfair-competition advantages.
• Specific-performance injunctions in breach-of-contract cases.

Without-notice applications (where the urgency justifies it) can be heard the same day. Out-of-hours applications are available for genuine emergencies.

Cross-border issues that recur in UK-China distributor cases

In our practice, the issues that most frequently determine the outcome of UK-China distribution disputes are:

• Documentary foundation. Email correspondence, WeChat / WhatsApp messages, signed contracts, purchase orders, delivery notes, invoices, payment records. We routinely deal with cases where the documentary record is in Chinese — translation services and proper authentication are part of the workflow.
• Disclosure of PRC 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 where required.
• Foreign-law evidence. Where the contract is governed by PRC law, we instruct PRC counsel for expert evidence on the relevant principles.
• Currency. Judgments in English law may be entered in foreign currencies including RMB. The court will direct the basis on which currency conversion is to be made on enforcement.
• Enforcement back into China. Where the UK defendant has assets only in China, an English judgment may need to be enforced via the PRC courts. The position is improving (notably under the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court line of reciprocity decisions), but it is not automatic. This consideration sometimes shapes the choice between English court litigation and arbitration.

When arbitration is the better route

Where the underlying contract contains an arbitration clause (CIETAC, BAC, HKIAC, LCIA, ICC, or another), proceedings in the English court will be stayed in favour of arbitration under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 if the defendant applies in time.

For Chinese claimants making the threshold choice between English court litigation and arbitration, the considerations are:

Factor	Court	Arbitration
Speed of obtaining award/judgment	Comparable	Comparable
Public vs private	Public	Confidential
Appeal	Available, costs-shifted	Limited; limited grounds
Enforcement in China	Difficult, case-by-case	Direct via New York Convention 1958
Cost	Recoverable from loser	Each side bears, partially shifted
Interim relief	Robust, full toolkit	Available but sometimes via court

For UK-China contracts where enforcement in China is the likely endgame, arbitration is often the better choice because the New York Convention 1958 makes enforcement in PRC courts much more straightforward than enforcing an English court judgment.

A separate guide on Enforcing Chinese Court Judgments in the United Kingdom covers the position where a Chinese claimant has obtained a PRC judgment first; the present guide is for the more common case where the claim has not yet been started.

What we do

Jackson Ng MCIArb (Partner & Barrister) and Leon Chua (Partner) lead the firm's cross-border UK-China commercial litigation practice. Jackson is the firm's barrister-partner with a focus on cross-border disputes and asset recovery. Leon leads commercial litigation in the Commercial Court and Chancery Division. Consultations are available in English, Mandarin or Cantonese.

Typical workflow for Chinese claimants:

• Initial assessment — jurisdiction, governing law, limitation, prospects of recovery, asset analysis.
• Pre-action correspondence — Letter Before Action, response strategy, ADR proposal where appropriate.
• Issue and service of proceedings in the appropriate court.
• Interim relief — freezing orders, Norwich Pharmacal orders, springboard or restrictive-covenant injunctions where required.
• Conduct of the action through to summary judgment, default judgment, or trial.
• Enforcement through the full English enforcement toolkit.
• 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:

• Telephone: +44 20 3036 0264
• Email: office@duanduanuk.com
• WhatsApp: message us on WhatsApp
• WeChat: search DuanDuanUKLLP
• In writing: 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 guide is general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Each cross-border dispute must be assessed on its specific facts. Limitation, jurisdiction and procedural rules apply. 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).