Obtaining judgment – particularly in a fraud claim – is only half the battle. Enforcement is where the real difficulty can be.
Last year a curious case relating to enforcement of a foreign judgment below the High Court value threshold caught my eye. It is a warning about the importance of procedure – as my colleague Molly Ahmed has recently written, procedure is crucial to litigation at all stages.
Common-law enforcement of foreign judgments in England
A great deal has been written and said about the changes to enforcement of EU judgments in England & Wales (and vice-versa) following Brexit, and the various treaties which have succeeded the Recast Brussels Regulation (Regulation (EU) 1215/2012).
Less is known about enforcement of foreign judgments at common law, i.e. where no treaty or statutory provision exists allowing enforcement. This is relevant for enforcement of judgments from the USA, Japan, Russia, China, the DIFC and many other jurisdictions, as well as some EU judgments.
To be enforceable at common law, the foreign judgment must broadly speaking be:
- final and conclusive;
- from a court of competent jurisdiction (applying relevant English-law rules);
- for a sum of money but not for taxes, a fine or other penalty (including penal or multiple damages);
- on the merits; and
- not objectionable on the grounds that the original proceedings deprived the defendant of a fair trial, breached the rules of natural justice, were tainted by fraud or enforcement would otherwise be contrary to public policy.
Procedure for common-law enforcement
Enforcement is by so-called “action on the foreign judgment”, i.e. a fresh English claim issued on the basis of the foreign judgment (on which the claimant would typically seek “summary judgment”, i.e. a judgment without detailed examination of factual evidence).
The procedural difficulty arises when the foreign judgment is for a relatively low sum. In which court should the new claim be issued? In England & Wales there are two levels of commercial courts: the County Courts, and the High Court. Typically, the County Courts deal with lower-value matters, and are perceived as less efficient than the High Court. Judges can be less well-qualified in the County Court than in the High Court (although that is not always the case).
The general rule is that commercial claims with a value of less than £100,000 must be issued in the County Court, whereas claims of £100,000 or more can (depending on the division) be issued in the High Court. However, does this threshold apply to a claim on a foreign judgment?
Surprisingly, it seems that until recently there was no direct authority on this issue. The answer was supplied by Field Industrial Supplies WLL v Thomas [2025] Lexis Citation 3625. It seems to be “no”.
Background
Field Industrial Supplies WLL (“FIS”), a Qatari company, obtained a judgment of a criminal court in Qatar in 2022 against a former employee, Mr Thomas (the “Qatari Judgment”). By the Qatari Judgment Mr Thomas was ordered to pay FIS the equivalent of around £52,000 in Qatari riyals which he was alleged to have embezzled from FIS while he worked for FIS in Qatar in 2006-2016.
By the time of the Qatari Judgment Mr Thomas was living in England. FIS sought to enforce the Qatari Judgment in England by proceedings issued in late 2023 in the County Court (the “English Claim”). FIS’s application for summary judgment in 2024 was unsuccessful and a trial was held in the second half of 2025.
County Court lacks jurisdiction
On 9 October 2025 the County Court judge found that the County Court had no jurisdiction to hear the English Claim for the following reasons.
Under the County Courts Act 1984, the County Court has general jurisdiction to determine actions “founded on contract or tort”, and has equitable jurisdiction to determine proceedings “for relief against fraud” (sections 15 and 23 respectively).
The English Claim was not an action “founded on contract or tort”, or an action “for relief against fraud”. It was a claim arising out of a foreign judgment, founded on a doctrine by which “the judgment by a foreign court of competent jurisdiction creates an obligation to pay the judgment sum enforceable in this jurisdiction as a debt” (Lenkor Energy Trading DMCC v Puri [2021] EWCA Civ 770 at paragraph 40, see also Williams v Jones (1845) 13 M & W 628, 633; Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] 1 Ch 433).
The County Court’s jurisdiction was limited to that conferred on it by statute, and it therefore had no jurisdiction to determine the English Claim.
What would have been the correct procedure?
Accordingly, it seems that FIS should have issued in the High Court (on the basis that the County Court has no jurisdiction) with the possibility that the High Court could transfer the claim to the County Court. This might seem somewhat surprising on the assumption that the County Court has no jurisdiction, but the court's view was that in this case it is right that "the High Court, rather than [the County Court], should choose when to relinquish its exclusive jurisdiction." Alternatively, FIS could have issued in the County Court and asked for the claim to be transferred to the High Court at an early stage of the claim (presumably with a risk that it might be transferred down again). In any event, there was no excuse for failing to do one or the other before the trial.
Earlier attempt to issue in the High Court not followed through
Frustratingly, FIS had in fact at first attempted to issue the English Claim in the High Court in August 2023. This attempt was rejected. The High Court cited the minimum value threshold of £100,000 and instructed FIS to issue in the County Court, on the assumption that the County Court had jurisdiction. FIS did not challenge that assumption, despite the suggestion from the High Court that it could do so and that a hearing could be held to determine the issue. That was to prove a costly omission.
The consequences
The County Court dismissed the English Claim.
The judge held that, even were it correctly issued, the English Claim would have failed since the Qatari court had no jurisdiction over Mr Thomas, who was not physically present in Qatar at the time the Qatari proceedings were started (and was therefore not a “court of competent jurisdiction”). Nevertheless, in another case a similar error of procedure could be significant enough to lead to dismissal on its own.
This is an important warning. While the English Courts are prepared to cure minor errors of procedure, where the error concerns a fundamental issue such as jurisdiction, it may well be fatal. Key procedural issues should be clarified from the start, and not when legal proceedings have been ongoing for years and substantial legal fees have been incurred.
