Civil compensation contribution claims and Hague 2019 – an analysis

Introduction

The Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters [‘Hague 2019’] marks a significant post-Brexit modernisation and development in the simplifying of cross-border enforcement of civil and commercial judgments in the UK. Its purpose is to provide clarity, reduce costs, and enhance legal certainty for cross-border litigation by offering a streamlined, treaty-based route for recognition and enforcement of judgments among contracting states, reducing reliance on complex national rules or diplomatic arrangements. In short, post-Brexit, it carries great promise for enforcing UK contribution claims internationally.

Civil contribution claims and enforcement following Brexit

A civil contribution claim arises when a party has paid damages or a debt, including under a joint-liability scenario, and seeks reimbursement from another party. In the context of historic personal abuse injury claims involving schools, for instance, this typically involves the school and/or its insurers seeking indemnity from the tortfeasor themselves, i.e. the employee who has committed assaults against a pupil victim, from which injury flowed. In England and Wales, such action is brought pursuant to the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978. It may be that, after obtaining judgment against a tortfeasor, the tortfeasor’s assets are located abroad and they are the only assets against which to enforce the judgment.

Prior to Brexit, UK courts enforced civil judgments under the Brussels I Recast Regulation. Contribution claims could be enforced automatically across the EU with mutual recognition, with no re-litigation, and harmonised procedures.

Following Brexit, the UK lost streamlined enforcement avenues like the Brussels I Recast Regulation and the Lugano Convention between it and EU member states. There was no automatic enforcement of England and Wales judgments in many foreign jurisdictions. Instead, judgment creditors were left with a mixture of options, which significantly complicated enforcing tort-based contribution claims:

• Common Law: The judgment creditor would have to enforce under the foreign state’s common law rules with the requirements varying from country to country. The issues with doing so include: (i) the judgment creditor may need to re-litigate aspects of the case, as defences may arise in the foreign jurisdiction; (ii) non-monetary judgments, such as injunctions, are not enforceable; and (iii) time and cost considerations.
• 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention: After Brexit came into effect on 1 January 2021, the UK acceded to Hague 2005. However, this only applies to contractual claims, as opposed to tort-based contribution claims against a tortfeasor.
• Bilateral Treaties or National Laws: Whether the judgment creditor is able to enforce its judgement abroad depends on whether (i) a bilateral or reciprocal treaty exists between the UK and the foreign state or (ii) the foreign state allows recognition of foreign judgments under its domestic law.

These mechanisms are often slow, costly, and may involve merits review or re-litigation, which is precisely what Hague 2019 aims to avoid.

Analysis of Hague 2019

On 27 June 2024 the UK ratified Hague 2019, which entered force on 1 July 2025. The UK’s implementation extends to England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, aligning all three jurisdictions under the Convention. As of August 2025, contracting parties to Hague 2019 are as follows: (i) the United Kingdom; (ii) the EU [except Denmark]; (iii) Ukraine; and (iv) Uruguay. Its reach is expanding, with Hague 2019 set to enter force in Albania and Montenegro on 1 March 2026 and for Andorra on 1 June 2026. There are also six further signatories – Costa Rica, Kosovo, Israel, North Macedonia, Russia, and the United States of America – who have yet to ratify it.

Hague 2019 applies only to judgments from proceedings commenced after it entered into force between the states concerned. For the UK, this means contribution proceedings started on or after 1 July 2025. Therefore, contribution judgments resulting from proceedings issued before 1 July 2025 cannot rely on Hague 2019 and must use other enforcement mechanisms, including those aforementioned.

Hague 2019 covers both civil and commercial judgments, including both monetary and non-monetary ones. Civil contribution claims fall under civil matters. As such, claims for monetary contribution are eligible. However, pursuant to Article 3.1(b), interim or provisional measures are excluded – for instance, a freezing injunction or an interim order for contribution before final settlement. Thus, a final contribution judgment would fall within the scope of Hague 2019.

To be enforceable, the judgment must meet only one of the jurisdictional links under Article 5. If the judgment debtor who must pay the contribution was (i) pursuant to Article 5(a), habitually resident in the UK at the time proceedings began and (ii) committed, pursuant to Article 5(j), the tort in the UK, the criteria would clearly be satisfied with two requirements met.

Pursuant to Articles 4 and 7, other contracting courts must not review the merits of the original judgment, and enforcement can only be refused on specific grounds – for instance: (i) judgments being obtained by fraud; (ii) public policy conflict (including situations where the specific proceedings leading to the judgment were incompatible with the fundamental principles of procedural fairness of that State); and (iii) improper service.

As such, when seeking to enforce a final contribution judgment abroad under Hague 2019, the following steps apply:

1. Check eligibility: Ensure the judgment arose from proceedings that commenced after 1 July 2025 and relate to civil and commercial matters.
2. Confirm the Article 5 filter: Verify the existence of a jurisdictional link.
3. Prepare required documents: Present a certified copy of the judgment, evidence of finality and enforceability, and ensure proper service of the documentation.
4. Submit to the foreign court: Apply to register or enforce under that state’s domestic procedures, without asking the court to review the case’s merits.
5. Anticipate any defences: Pay particular heed to permissible objections under Article 7.

If all the conditions are satisfied, the enforcing court must recognise the contribution judgment and enforce it as if it were a domestic judgment.

Comment

Hague 2019 marks a significant and promising development in cross-border enforcement of civil and commercial judgments in the UK. As to the benefits for contribution claims:

• Restored cross-border enforcement: Post-Brexit, Hague 2019 fills the void left by the loss of Brussels I Recast Regulation and the Lugano Convention.
• Certainty and efficiency: Final contribution judgments from the UK can be enforced quickly in other contracting states without re-litigating liability.
• Expanding jurisdictions: Its reach is expanding, being set to enter force for both Albania and Montenegro on 1 March 2026 and for Andorra on 1 June 2026. There are a further six signatories yet to ratify it.

However, legal practitioners must remain mindful of the following strategic considerations:

• Eligibility: It applies only to proceedings commenced after 1 July 2025.
• Scope exclusions: It excludes interim relief, e.g. freezing injunctions and interim payments.
• Jurisdictional requirements: For tort-related contribution claims rooted in foreign events, this may render judgments ineligible. Ensure judgments satisfy Article 5.
• Possible defences: Anticipate potential permissible objections under Article 7.
• Required documentations: Be prepared with required documentation for foreign enforcement.
• Updates: Keep updated as to new ratifications extending the scope of enforceability.

Conclusion

Hague 2019 significantly enhances the enforceability of civil contribution judgments across borders, so long as they are (i) initiated post-1 July 2025, (ii) final, and (iii) meet jurisdictional criteria. Hague 2019 simplifies and expedites enforcement of civil contribution claims, preserving the value of UK judgments abroad.

Still, we must remain mindful of limitations: (i) it is not retroactive, (ii) there are scope exclusions, and (iii) it has limited coverage. For pre-Hague 2019 judgments or interim claims, traditional enforcement pathways – which can prove time-consuming and costly – remain necessary.