Skip to content

Reformulating the common law rules on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)56-74
Number of pages19
JournalLegal Studies
Issue number1
Early online date18 Dec 2018
DateAccepted/In press - 21 Dec 2017
DateE-pub ahead of print - 18 Dec 2018
DatePublished (current) - Mar 2019


This paper revisits the English common law rules on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in personam. It seeks to demonstrate that, mainly due to the narrow conception of the foreign courts' 'international jurisdictional competence', the operation of this aspect of the English conflict-of-laws rules gives rise to problematic outcomes. Subsequently, the paper proceeds to identify and evaluate three of the main doctrinal models which have been proposed in response to these shortcomings. It is contended that, despite their virtues, ultimately, none of these models provides the desirable basis for recasting the law. The paper's main contribution is, therefore, to advance an alternative approach for the reformulation of the recognition and enforcement regime at common law. In this regard, it is argued that the foreign courts' international jurisdictional competence should be defined more broadly as to include the jurisdictional 'gateways', presently codified within CPR Practice Direction 6B para 3.1.

    Research areas

  • common law, private international law, recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments

Download statistics

No data available



  • Full-text PDF (accepted author manuscript)

    Rights statement: This is the author accepted manuscript (AAM). The final published version (version of record) is available online via Cambridge University Press at . Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.

    Accepted author manuscript, 312 KB, PDF document


View research connections

Related faculties, schools or groups