Jurisdiction and enforcement in cross-border disputes

When fraud or asset recovery disputes involve multiple countries, questions of applicable law, enforcement options and judicial standards become crucial.

We provide an overview of the main English law considerations for clients involved in cross‑border matters, including the key issues regarding the jurisdiction of the English court.

Challenging court jurisdiction in cross-border disputes

When a dispute spans multiple countries, one of the key questions any court must answer is whether it has the authority ('jurisdiction') to hear the case. In litigation, this is often the first, and sometimes the most strategically important, issue that arises in cross‑border disputes.

Parties typically challenge jurisdiction where they consider another jurisdiction offers more favourable legal remedies or where the claim has been issued in breach of an agreed jurisdiction or arbitration clause. A successful challenge can delay proceedings significantly or even dispose of the claim entirely, making it a powerful procedural tool.

For defendants, contesting jurisdiction can avoid the time and cost of litigating in England, reduce the risk of parallel proceedings abroad or enforce an agreed dispute resolution mechanism. For claimants, understanding the potential grounds for a challenge is crucial to protecting the chosen forum from the outset of a dispute.

What does jurisdiction mean?

The English courts have emphasised that jurisdiction is much broader than just the territorial jurisdiction of the court. It means the court's authority to determine a dispute brought before it.

Under English law, a party may either:

1. ground jurisdiction in England – seeking to establish that the English courts should hear the dispute; or
2. challenge jurisdiction – arguing that England is not the appropriate forum and the claim should proceed in another jurisdiction.

Basis on which jurisdiction can be challenged

A jurisdiction challenge can be brought on two bases. The defendant to proceedings either:

• disputes that the English court has any jurisdiction; or
• accepts that the English court has jurisdiction but requests that it does not exercise that jurisdiction, for example on the basis of forum non conveniens (more on this below).

Defendants need to make sure that they consider and act on challenging jurisdiction promptly. If the defendant fails to make a jurisdiction application, then they are deemed to have submitted to the court’s jurisdiction and the case proceeds.

There are a number of grounds on which the court's jurisdiction may be challenged. For instance, the court does not have jurisdiction because there is an enforceable jurisdiction agreement providing for the courts of another country to have jurisdiction to determine the dispute.

Forum non conveniens

The doctrine of forum non conveniens allows a court to decline to hear a case even where it technically has jurisdiction, if it considers that another court in a different country is clearly the more appropriate forum for resolving the dispute.

In applying this principle, the English courts assess whether there is an alternative jurisdiction with a closer connection to the dispute – whether because the underlying events took place there, the parties or witnesses are based there or the relevant law is foreign law. The court also considers practical factors, such as the location of documents and evidence and the availability of witnesses.

Effect of concurrent arbitration

Parties may find that they are involved in both arbitration and court proceedings concerning the same issues. In these situations, the defendant may apply to stay the English court proceedings under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996, which requires the dispute to be referred to arbitration.

However, a valid arbitration agreement does not entirely remove the English court’s jurisdiction. For example, an arbitration award, once recognised, may still be relied upon in court by way of defence. The courts also consider the risk of inconsistent outcomes where parallel proceedings are on foot.

Grounding jurisdiction in the English courts

Claimants seeking to establish jurisdiction in England have a number of well‑established routes available to them. The most straightforward is where the parties have agreed in their contract that the English courts should resolve any disputes arising between them. An exclusive jurisdiction clause will usually be upheld, meaning the English courts will accept jurisdiction unless there are extremely strong reasons not to.

Jurisdiction may also be established through service within the jurisdiction. If a defendant is physically present in England and is served with the claim form while within the jurisdiction, the English courts will generally have jurisdiction, regardless of where the underlying dispute arose.

Permission to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction

Where the defendant is located abroad, the claimant may need to seek the court’s permission to serve the proceedings out of the jurisdiction. This requires the claimant to satisfy a three‑stage test: the claim involves a serious issue to be tried; England is the proper place for the dispute to be heard, meaning it is the forum with the closest and most real connection to the issues in dispute; and the claim must fall within one of the recognised jurisdictional gateways set out in the court's procedural rules.

Applying foreign law in English Courts

English courts frequently hear cases that involve foreign law. Understanding how foreign law operates in English proceedings is important for litigants considering whether – and how – to rely on it.

What is the meaning of 'foreign law'

Any law that is not the law of England and Wales is treated as 'foreign law'. This includes Scottish law and Northern Irish law, which is why contractual clauses should ideally avoid referring to 'British' or 'UK' law as the governing law.

Foreign law must be pleaded and proved

Unlike English law, which judges evaluate and apply themselves (with the assistance of barristers in court), foreign law is treated as a matter of fact. This means that (i) a party must plead that foreign law applies; and (ii) must prove its content through evidence.

Two key rules

English courts apply two long‑standing rules when foreign law arises:

1. The default rule – if the parties do not plead that foreign law applies, the court will simply apply English law. This can be tactically attractive where proving foreign law would be costly or complex.
2. The presumption of similarity – if a party pleads that foreign law applies but does not plead its content, the court will assume, unless shown otherwise, that the foreign law is the same as English law.

Proving foreign law - expert evidence

Foreign law is generally proved by expert evidence. Experts need not be practising lawyers; they must simply be suitably qualified through knowledge or experience. Evidence is usually given in written reports which must be compliant with the English court's procedural rules and are often followed by oral evidence at trial. The court's permission will be required to adduce evidence on foreign law.

Worldwide Freezing Orders

A worldwide freezing order (WFO) is an interim injunction restraining a respondent from disposing of or dealing with assets anywhere in the world up to a specified value. It is considered one of the most powerful remedies available in English law because of its broad scope and potential extraterritorial effect. For more information regarding WFOs, please see our note on injunctions.

Section 25 Injunctions

Section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 empowers the High Court to grant freezing orders in support of court proceedings in another jurisdiction. This allows English courts to assist foreign litigation or arbitration by preserving assets within their reach. For instance, if litigation is ongoing in Dubai, but the defendant holds assets in England, the English court can grant a WFO under section 25 to freeze those assets while the litigation in Dubai is ongoing.

To secure a freezing order in support of foreign proceedings, the applicant must demonstrate a good arguable case in the underlying foreign claim and establish a real risk that the respondent will dissipate assets in a way that could frustrate enforcement of any judgment obtained. The applicant must show a connection to England and Wales otherwise relief may be refused as 'inexpedient' under section 25(2), ie inappropriate or unsuitable given the circumstances.

For more information regarding section 25 injunctions, please see our note on injunctions.

Enforcing English judgments abroad

Enforcement is not automatic. Enforcing a judgment means taking a positive step, such as seizing a debtor's property, in order to give effect to a judgment obtained in England.

Whether an English judgment can be enforced in any particular foreign country will depend on the private international law of that country, so advice from a local lawyer may be required. In summary, it ought to be possible to enforce an English court judgment abroad using any of the following methods:

• The Hague Judgments Convention, which can provide a route to recognition and enforcement of many civil and commercial judgments between the UK and other contracting states, including all EU member states except Denmark, for proceedings commenced on or after 1 July 2025.
• The Hague Choice of Court Convention where parties have agreed an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the English courts and is generally enforceable across other contracting states, including all EU members and Singapore.
• Many Commonwealth countries allow enforcement of English judgments under long-standing statutes: the Administration of Justice Act 1920 and the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933.
• In jurisdictions where no treaty or reciprocal enforcement arrangement exists, eg the USA and China, English judgments must be enforced through the local law or common law route. Typically, this involves issuing a fresh claim in the foreign court, with the English judgment being relied on as evidence of the debt.

For information about the options available to enforce a judgment debt in England, please see our note on judgment enforcement and asset recovery.

To meet the rise and increasing sophistication of fraud, victims need powerful legal tools and lawyers who know how to use them. In this guide, we provide an overview of the key issues involved in fraud cases and outline some of the fraud litigation tools available in England.

READ MORE

This publication is a general summary of the law. It should not replace legal advice tailored to your specific circumstances.

© Farrer & Co LLP, June 2026