Does reciprocal enforcement in the EU really matter?

One of the concerns arising from the UK’s exit from the EU is that it will make judgments of English courts more difficult to enforce in the EU, as the expedited proceedings in the Brussels Recast Regulation will no longer apply.

If the UK signs up to the Hague Convention on Choice of Courts Agreement then it will be able to take advantage of the provisions in that Convention for the recognition of judgments, although these are more cumbersome than the Brussels Recast Regulation.

Will this be a problem in practice? Recent experience in English courts indicates that the answer may well be “no”. In a series of cases in the last few years (notably Masri and Ablyazov) the English courts have used a number of remedies to put pressure on parties amenable to the jurisdiction here to ensure that English judgments are enforced. This includes the appointment of receivers and the use of contempt proceedings. For example, in Masri the judgment of the English court was effectively enforced by means of contempt proceedings by the judgment creditor against a director of the defendant company who was subject to English jurisdiction as he lived here.

Indeed, the methods adopted by the English court to encourage parties to comply with English judgments can sometimes be more effective than seeking to enforce the relevant judgment in another jurisdiction, including in the EU.