Search

December Newsbyte: Enforcement of Foreign Judgments and Arbitral Awards with Recent Developments

United States

Enforcement of Foreign Judgments and Arbitral Awards: Provisions and Recent Developments in the U.S.

While the recognition and enforcement of foreign money judgments in the United States is formally governed by the varying laws of each state, many states have adopted a model law known as the Uniform Foreign‐Money Judgments Recognition Act.  The state of New York, for example, has codified the Uniform Law in Article 53 of its Civil Practice Law and Rules (“Article 53”).  In contrast, the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards in the U.S. is governed by federal law—specifically, the Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”).

A judgment creditor often seeks to recognize a foreign money judgment or arbitral award in the United States because doing so permits the use of U.S. post-judgment discovery mechanisms. Once a foreign judgment is recognized, the creditor can use U.S.-style depositions, interrogatories, subpoenas, and broad document discovery to locate the debtor’s assets—whether held directly, through affiliates, or in U.S. financial institutions.  American courts generally permit more expansive discovery into assets than many foreign jurisdictions do, making the U.S. an attractive forum for identifying and executing against concealed or complex asset structures. Recognition in the U.S. therefore equips foreign judgments and arbitrations with robust tools for practical enforcement.

The note below discusses the key provisions of Article 53 (which is broadly similar to most other state laws regarding foreign judgments) and the FAA.  The note concludes with a brief summary of a recent U.S. court opinion on recognizing foreign judgments.

Foreign Judgments

Article 53 provides that for a foreign judgment to be enforceable by a court in New York, the judgment must be for a sum of money, and it must be final, conclusive, and enforceable in the foreign jurisdiction where it was issued.  Judgments are enforceable in New York even if an appeal of the judgment is possible or pending.  However, Article 53 does not apply to judgments for taxes, fines or penalties, or to judgments related to domestic relations such as divorce or child support.

The party seeking recognition of the foreign judgment bears the burden of proving that it is enforceable under Article 53.  According to Article 53, New York courts must deny recognition to a foreign judgment if any of the following enumerated grounds applies:

  1. the judgment was rendered under a judicial system that does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law;
  2. the foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant; or
  3. the foreign court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter.

While Article 53 also grants courts the discretion to refuse recognition based on another limited set of considerations, New York courts generally accord recognition to foreign judgments unless doing so would be repugnant to New York or U.S. public policy or there is strong evidence of impropriety in the underlying foreign proceedings.

Foreign Arbitration Awards

Under the FAA, a recipient of a foreign arbitration award may apply to a court in the U.S. for an order confirming the award.  The court is required to confirm the award unless it finds that any of the enumerated grounds for refusal or deferral of recognition applies:

  1. the parties to the arbitration agreement lacked the capacity to make the agreement, or the agreement is not valid under the law designated by the parties (or, in the absence of such designation, under the law of the country where the award was made);
  2. the party against whom the award is invoked was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or the arbitration proceedings, or was otherwise unable to present their case;
  3. the award contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration (however, parts of the award that address matters within the scope of arbitration may still be enforced);
  4. the composition of the arbitral authority or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties (or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with the law of the country where the arbitration took place);
  5. the award has not yet become binding on the parties or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, the award was made;
  6. the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law of the country where enforcement is sought; or
  7. enforcing the award would be contrary to the public policy of the United States.

A party opposing the confirmation of a foreign jurisdiction’s arbitral award bears the burden to establish one of the enumerated defenses.  This burden is a heavy one because U.S. courts construe the defenses narrowly to encourage the recognition and enforcement of arbitration agreements.

U.S. courts retain discretion to enforce the award even if nullification proceedings are ongoing in the country where the award was rendered.

In certain cases, state law may also play a role in the recognition of foreign arbitration awards.  For example, if a foreign arbitral award has been converted into a judgment in the foreign country, state law on the recognition of foreign money judgments applies.

Recent Developments

In a recent decision, Cargill Financial Services Int’l, Inc. v. Barshchovskiy (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 18 2025), the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York confirmed that proceedings to recognize non-U.S. judgments pursuant to New York’s CPLR Article 53, under certain circumstances, do not require the U.S. court to have personal jurisdiction over the judgment debtor.  This is particularly the case where there are no substantive defenses to recognition, in which case the proceeding is largely a ministerial step. Significantly, the opinion highlights the strategic benefit for judgment creditors of obtaining recognition in New York: it enables access to U.S. court tools—including subpoenas and post-judgment discovery—that help locate debtor assets and thus facilitate enforcement. This decision reinforces the view that U.S. recognition proceedings can serve as a gateway to the robust asset-tracing and enforcement mechanisms available under U.S. law.


International

Recent Developments on the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments and Arbitral Awards in Australia

The Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) governs the enforceability of foreign judgments in Australia. It permits the registration of judgments from prescribed jurisdictions, treating them as having the same legal effect as domestic judgments. Judgments from a jurisdiction not prescribed in the Act may also be enforced at common law provided the judgment is final and conclusive, for a fixed monetary sum, and issued by a jurisdiction recognised by Australian law.

The enforcement of arbitral awards in Australia is governed by the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth), which incorporates the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (New York Convention) and the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID Convention). With its pro-enforcement framework and support of both foreign and domestic international awards, Australia is an attractive forum for overcoming foreign immunity issues.

Section 10 of the Foreign State Immunities Act 1985 (Cth) (Immunities Act) establishes an exception to a foreign states’ immunity from Australian courts. However, a state may waive immunity and submit to the jurisdiction “by agreement or otherwise”, with “agreement” defined to include agreement by treaty

 

Kingdom of Spain v Infrastructure Services Luxembourg Sàrl & Another (2023)

Recent developments in Kingdom of Spain have construed waivers of sovereign immunity by reference to treaty obligations under the ICSID Convention requiring recognition and enforcement of foreign awards by national courts.

Kingdom of Spain concerned a €101 million ICSID award by investors under the Energy Charter Treaty. Spain had resisted enforcement in Australia claiming foreign state immunity.

The key issue was whether Spain’s accordance with Articles 52-55 of the ICSID Convention constituted a waiver of foreign state immunity for the purposes of Australia’s Immunities Act.

The High Court rejected the argument that a waiver must be express, and held Spain had implicitly waived that immunity by acceding to the ICSID Convention.

The ruling confirms that foreign immunity claims do not prohibit the recognition of ICSID awards and reinforces Australia’s reputation as a pro-arbitration jurisdiction.

Recent Developments on the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments and Arbitral Awards in Australia

The Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) governs the enforceability of foreign judgments in Australia. It permits the registration of judgments from prescribed jurisdictions, treating them as having the same legal effect as domestic judgments. Judgments from a jurisdiction not prescribed in the Act may also be enforced at common law provided the judgment is final and conclusive, for a fixed monetary sum, and issued by a jurisdiction recognised by Australian law.

The enforcement of arbitral awards in Australia is governed by the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth), which incorporates the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (New York Convention) and the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID Convention). With its pro-enforcement framework and support of both foreign and domestic international awards, Australia is an attractive forum for overcoming foreign immunity issues.

Section 10 of the Foreign State Immunities Act 1985 (Cth) (Immunities Act) establishes an exception to a foreign states’ immunity from Australian courts. However, a state may waive immunity and submit to the jurisdiction “by agreement or otherwise”, with “agreement” defined to include agreement by treaty

 

Kingdom of Spain v Infrastructure Services Luxembourg Sàrl & Another (2023)

Recent developments in Kingdom of Spain have construed waivers of sovereign immunity by reference to treaty obligations under the ICSID Convention requiring recognition and enforcement of foreign awards by national courts.

Kingdom of Spain concerned a €101 million ICSID award by investors under the Energy Charter Treaty. Spain had resisted enforcement in Australia claiming foreign state immunity.

The key issue was whether Spain’s accordance with Articles 52-55 of the ICSID Convention constituted a waiver of foreign state immunity for the purposes of Australia’s Immunities Act.

The High Court rejected the argument that a waiver must be express, and held Spain had implicitly waived that immunity by acceding to the ICSID Convention.

The ruling confirms that foreign immunity claims do not prohibit the recognition of ICSID awards and reinforces Australia’s reputation as a pro-arbitration jurisdiction.

China has established a robust framework for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards. Its primary legal foundations include the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention,” acceded to by China in 1987), the newly revised Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China (the “Arbitration Law,” adopted on September 12, 2025, and effective as of March 1, 2026), and the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (promulgated on September 1, 2023, and effective as of January 1, 2024).

This framework upholds the core principles of treaty primacy and reciprocity, while the revised Arbitration Law further strengthens the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Key updates in this regard are as follows: (a) establishing an arbitration seat regime that aligns with the New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, and promoting the Chinese mainland as a preferred arbitration seat—a measure that underscores the Chinese mainland’s efforts to enhance the internationalization of Chinese arbitration; (b) extending the scope of ad hoc arbitration (also referred to as “special arbitration”) to cover foreign-related maritime arbitration cases and disputes involving enterprises established in designated free trade zones; and (c) adjusting the time limit for applying for the revocation of an arbitral award from six months to three months, calculated from the date on which the arbitral award is received.

On September 28, 2025, the Supreme People’s Court issued the fifth batch of “Belt and Road” model cases. Notable among these cases are the recognition of a Singaporean court judgment by the Suzhou International Commercial Court on the basis of reciprocity, and the recognition and enforcement of a Mongolian arbitral award by the Shanghai International Commercial Court—where both the New York Convention and the bilateral judicial assistance treaty were potentially applicable.

The revised Arbitration Law will formally enter into force on March 1, 2026. Supporting judicial interpretations are currently being formulated by the Supreme People’s Court. Once implemented, these regulatory measures will clarify operational details, thereby further enhancing the predictability and international compatibility of China’s system for recognizing and enforcing arbitral awards.

Enforcement of Foreign Judgments and Arbitral Awards: Provisions and Recent Developments in Indonesia

Indonesia became a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (“New York Convention”) in 1981, and ratified it through Presidential Decree No. 34 of 1981 on the Ratification on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, which serves as the legal basis for the recognition of foreign arbitral awards in Indonesia. In 1999, the recognition and enforcement procedures of foreign arbitral awards were further regulated under the Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (“Arbitration Law”).

In contrast to international arbitral awards, foreign court judgments cannot be directly enforced in Indonesia because Indonesia has not yet ratified the Hague Convention of 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (“Hague Convention”) which governs the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments.

With regard to the enforcement of foreign court judgments, the relevant provisions in Indonesia can be found in Article 436 of the Reglement op de Rechtsvordering (“RV”). Article 436 of the RV stipulates that a case that has been decided by a foreign court may be filed and adjudicated again before an Indonesian court. In Indonesia, this is commonly referred to as a re-litigation claim, whereby the foreign court judgment is treated as authentic evidence in the lawsuit filed before the Indonesian court.

Key Provisions of Arbitration Law in Relation to the Foreign Arbitral Awards

  1. Criteria for the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in Indonesia

Article 66 (b) of the Arbitration Law sets out the criteria of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral award as follows:

  • rendered by an arbitrator or arbitral tribunal in a country with which Indonesia has a bilateral or multilateral agreement concerning recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards;
  • classified under the field of commercial law according to Indonesian law decision concerns the commercial matters;
  • does not contravene Indonesia’s public policy/order;
  • a stipulation of enforcement (exequatur) to enforce the award has been issued by the Central Jakarta District Court (“CJDC”); and
  • in case where the Republic of Indonesia is one of the disputing parties, the enforcement of foreign arbitral award can only be executed after the issuance of the stipulation of enforcement (exequatur) by the Supreme Court to be further executed by the CJDC.
  1. Contravention of Public Policy as a Ground for Refusing the Enforcement of International Arbitral Award

As explained above, one of the requirements for the enforcement of an international arbitral award is that the award must not contravene public policy. This requirement is adopted from Article V of the New York Convention.

The main issue in this regard lies in how to interpret the meaning of “public policy”. Indonesian regulations have not provided a detailed benchmark of what constitutes public policy.

The provision that provides a definition of public order is found in Article 1 point 9 of Supreme Court Regulation Number 3 of 2023 on Procedures for the Appointment of Arbitrators by the Court, the Rights of Recusal, Examination of Requests for Enforcement, and the Annulment of Arbitral Awards (“SC Regulation 3/2023”) which states that public order refers to all fundamental principles essential for the functioning of the legal, economic, and socio-cultural systems of Indonesian society and the nation.

However, this definition lacks a clear benchmark for its application.

Recent Developments on International Arbitration in Indonesia

  1. Latest Supreme Court Decision Related to Arbitration

The SC Regulation 3/2023 stipulates, inter alia, the provisions regarding following matters:

  • the procedures for court-appointed arbitrators;
  • addressing parties’ disagreement on the appointment of an arbitrator;
  • the grounds and process for rights of recusal in arbitration proceedings;
  • the examination of requests for the enforcement of arbitral awards; and
  • the guidelines for annulment of arbitral awards.
  1. Latest Constitutional Court Decision on the Definition of International Arbitral Awards

On 3 January 2025, the Constitutional Court issued Decision No. 100/PUU-XXII/2024, which amended the definition of an international arbitral award under Article 1 paragraph (9) of the Arbitration Law by removing a phrase that caused multiple interpretations, thereby focusing on a narrow territorial concept. This means that an award is considered international only if it is rendered outside Indonesia.

  1. Arbitration Law is Listed to be Amended

The revision of the Arbitration Law is included in the draft bills of the 2025–2029 National Legislation Program. Based on the Academic Draft of the Draft Bill on the Amendment of the Arbitration Law, changes and developments are planned concerning the regulation of electronic arbitration, the appointment of foreign arbitrators, special mechanisms for micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs), as well as addressing the existential needs of the public by providing provisions on the limitation and scope of public order.

We hope the upcoming Arbitration Law will provide clarity, efficiency, and finality in the arbitral process.

Foreign Judgments

The relevant Japanese laws are the Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. 109 of 1996, as amended) and the Civil Execution Act (Act No. 4 of 1979, as amended).

Under Japanese law, foreign court judgments are not automatically recognized nor directly enforceable. As of December 1, 2025, Japan is not a contracting party to the Hague Judgments Convention 2019.

Therefore, in order for a judgment creditor to enforce a foreign judgment, it must follow two steps: (1) Petition a Japanese court to issue a domestic “execution judgment” (shikko-hanketsu) which confirms that the foreign judgment fulfills the requirements set out in Article 118 of the Code of Civil Procedure; then (2) utilize this “execution judgment” (shikko-hanketsu) under the Civil Execution Act (Article 22 Item 6) to enforce the foreign judgement. Enforcement procedures will follow the same steps as those for domestic judgments.

Below are the requirements set out in Article 118 of the Code of Civil Procedure:

  1. the foreign judgment must be final and binding (therefore, interim relief such as provisional attachment or provisional disposition do not satisfy this requirement);
  2. the jurisdiction of the foreign court is recognized pursuant to laws and regulations, conventions, or treaties;
  3. the defeated defendant has been served (excluding service by publication or any other service similar thereto) with the requisite summons or order for the commencement of litigation, or has appeared without being so served;
  4. the content of the judgment and the litigation proceedings are not contrary to public policy in Japan; and
  5. a guarantee of reciprocity of enforcement of judgments is in place.

Note that regarding item (d) “public policy”, the Supreme Court of Japan has confirmed through multiple rulings that punitive damages are not recognized in Japan as such damages are considered to be against public policy and a judgment therefor is not enforceable in Japan.

Foreign Arbitral Awards

The relevant Japanese law is the Arbitration Act (Act No. 138 of 2003, as amended). Japan is a party to the 1958 New York Convention, and the treaty was ratified in Japan as of June 20, 1961.

Japan has incorporated the enforcement principles of the 1958 New York Convention through the Arbitration Act. Therefore, Japanese courts routinely recognize and enforce arbitral awards rendered by arbitration. The Arbitration Act explicitly sets out that an arbitral award (irrespective of whether or not the place of arbitration is in Japan) shall have the same effect as a final and binding judgment.

Consistent with the New York Convention, Japanese courts may refuse recognition and enforcement only on narrow and limited grounds (Article 45, Paragraph 2):

  1. the arbitration agreement is not valid due to the limited capacity of a party;
  2. the arbitration agreement is not valid on grounds other than the limited capacity of a party pursuant to the laws and regulations designated by the agreement of the parties as those which should be applied to the arbitration agreement (if no such designation has been made, the laws and regulations of the country to which the place of arbitration belongs);
  3. the party did not receive the notice required under the laws and regulations of the country to which the place of arbitration belongs (if the parties have reached an agreement on the matters concerning the provisions unrelated to public order in such laws and regulations, said agreement) in the procedure of appointing arbitrators or in the arbitration procedure;
  4. the party was unable to defend the arbitration procedure;
  5. the arbitral award contains a decision on matters beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement or of a petition in the arbitration procedure;
  6. the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitration procedure itself violates the laws and regulations of the country to which the place of arbitration belongs;
  7. according to the laws and regulations of the country to which the place of arbitration belongs, the arbitral award is not final and binding, or the arbitral award has been set aside or its effect has been suspended by a judicial body of that country;
  8. the petition filed in the arbitration procedure is concerned with a dispute which may not be subject to an arbitration agreement pursuant to the provisions of Japanese laws and regulations; and
  9. the content of the arbitral award is contrary to public policy in Japan.

Note that the grounds set forth in items (a) through (g) are limited to the case where any of the parties has proved the existence of said grounds (Article 45, Paragraph 2).

Also regarding item (i), as described above under “Foreign Judgments”, punitive damages are against “public policy” and therefore are not enforceable in Japan.

To seek enforcement, the award creditor must file a petition before a Japanese court and submit following documents:

  1. copy of the written arbitral award;
  2. a document proving that the contents are the same as those of the written arbitral award; and
  3. a Japanese translation of the written arbitral award (if not originally prepared in Japanese), however, if the court finds it appropriate, it may, after hearing the views of the respondent, determine that the applicant is not required to submit a Japanese translation of all or part of the arbitral award.

Below please find the additional material on digitalization of court proceedings that I thought might be interesting.

Recent Developments in Japan

An extensive digitalization reform is in progress in Japan including for civil enforcement procedures.

The Act Partially Amending the Code of Civil Procedure and Related Statutes (Act No. 48 of 2022), which was enacted on May 18, 2022, is scheduled to be fully implemented within four years from the date of promulgation, i.e., by May 25, 2026.

The Act for the Development of Relevant Laws to Promote the Utilization of Information and Communication Technology in Civil-Related Procedures, etc. (Act No. 53 of 2023, commonly referred to as the “Procedural Digitalization Act”) sets out digitalization of other areas, including civil execution procedures and bankruptcy procedures, which will come into effect, at the latest, by June 14, 2028.

These digitalization reforms establish the legal framework necessary for the full digitalization of civil litigation procedures, and, in tandem with the development of a new judicial IT system by the Supreme Court, is expected to bring about a substantial transformation in the conduct of court proceedings.

From 2027 onward, a comprehensive database system is expected to become operational, enabling centralized management and search of digital litigation records, judgments, and other court documents.

Other key amendments include:

  • The ability to file all civil actions and other applications with any court via the internet, as well as to receive service of process through access to the court’s server;
  • Expanded availability of participation in hearings, oral arguments, and similar proceedings through web conferencing or teleconferencing;
  • Digitalization of litigation records (as a general rule, electronic records stored as files on the court server), with online viewing and reproduction (downloads) accessible to the parties;
  • Establishment of “statutory time-frame litigation procedures” requiring the conclusion of hearings and the rendering of judgments within a specified period;
  • Introduction of systems for protection of crime victims and others, including mechanisms for concealing personal information such as addresses and names;
  • Authorization for settlements, mediations, and similar resolutions in personal status litigation and domestic relations cases to be conducted via web conferencing; and
  • Digitalization of procedures such as the issuance of enforcement certificates, and advancement of electronic management of enforceable titles, including judgments.

Enforcement of Foreign Judgments and Arbitral Awards with Recent Developments.

Foreign Judgments

In Malaysia, the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgment Act 1958 (“REJA”) prescribes the applicable criteria and procedure for registration of a foreign judgment in Malaysia for purposes of enforcement. REJA identifies recognised jurisdictions listed in its First Schedule and the superior courts identified for those jurisdictions. The recognised jurisdictions are the United Kingdom, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, Singapore, New Zealand, Republic of Sri Lanka, India (excluding certain states), and Brunei.

Foreign judgments that meet the relevant criteria in terms of the nature of the foreign judgment and originate from the superior courts listed in one of the seven jurisdictions identified in the First Schedule of REJA are eligible for registration. The relevant criteria refer to the procedural requirements specified in REJA, the Rules of Court 2012 and the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act 1950.

Parties who seek to enforce foreign judgments originating from other jurisdictions may do so by way of a common law action.

In a decision delivered on 23 February 2023, the Federal Court (the most senior court in Malaysia) dismissed an appeal to enforce a foreign judgment by way of common law action. In this instance, a copy of the judgment submitted for the initial application for registration was attached to a translation but the judgment itself was not authenticated or certified. In arriving at this decision, the Federal Court was of the view that the rules of evidence applicable in REJA should also apply when a party seeks to enforce a foreign judgment by way of common law action.  This decision was rendered in Pembinaan SPK Sdn Bhd v Conaire Engineering Sdn Bhd-LLC & Anor and Another Appeal [2023] 3 MLRA 287. This decision is helpful for future cases where a foreign judgment is sought to be enforced by way of a common law action. It provides guidance regarding the rules of evidence that should be adhered to with respect to the admissibility of a foreign judgment in such legal proceedings.

Foreign arbitral awards

Under the Arbitration Act 2005, an application can be made to the High Court to recognize an arbitration award from a foreign state. In the act, a “foreign state” refers to a State which is a party to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards adopted by the United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration in 1958 (commonly referred to as the New York Convention).

In a decision delivered by the Federal Court on 13 August 2025, the Federal Court confirmed that an award creditor was not bound to pursue enforcement of a foreign arbitral award solely through the recognition process under the Arbitration Act 2005. This decision was rendered in ING Bank NV & Anor v Tumpuan Megah Development Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 2449. The court noted that while it is generally more common for an arbitral award winner to seek registration and enforcement under the Arbitration Act 2005, a foreign arbitral award may be enforced in Malaysia pursuant to the Arbitration Act 2005 or by way of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 (“REJA”), each of which are separate and distinct modes of enforcement. In this instance, the foreign arbitral award was granted from arbitration proceedings seated in London. The arbitral award was subsequently registered as a judgment in the English High Court for enforcement purposes under the UK Arbitration Act 1996. Thereafter, the appellants sought to register the English High Court judgment in the Malaysian High Court under the auspices of REJA instead of initiating the registration and enforcement process for the foreign arbitral award pursuant to the Arbitration Act 2005. As this decision confirms two modes of enforcement as options, the requirements of each mode of enforcement should be assessed based on the unique factual circumstances of the foreign arbitral award to facilitate a decision on the eventual mode of enforcement.

Enforcement of Foreign Judgments and Arbitral Awards with Recent Developments

Arbitral Awards

The Arbitration Act 1996 governs the enforcement and recognition of foreign arbitral awards in New Zealand.  In accordance with the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (the New York Convention), a New Zealand Court must recognise a foreign arbitral award to be binding irrespective of the jurisdiction it originated from.  However, the successful party must apply to the court in order to enforce the arbitral award by entering it as a judgment.

Foreign Judgments

There are four methods by which a foreign judgment may be enforced in New Zealand:

  1. Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010

The Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (TTPA) allows for judgments given in any Court of Australia to be recognised and enforced in New Zealand.  The judgment must be a “registrable Australian judgment” under s 54 of the Act.

  1. Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1934

The Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1934 (REJA) provides for the enforcement, through registration, of judgments from Courts in the United Kingdom.

Orders in Council under the Act also allow judgments from senior Courts in certain jurisdictions to be registered in the High Court of New Zealand.  This includes judgments from Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak, Belgium, Ceylon, France, Hong King, India, Nigeria, Solomon Islands, Fiji, Gilbert and Ellice Islands (Kiribati and Tuvalu), Basutoland (Lesotho), Bechuanaland (Botswana), Swaziland, Pakistan, Tonga, and Western Samoa.

  1. Senior Courts Act 2016

The Senior Courts Act 2016 provides for the enforcement of judgments from the courts of Commonwealth countries.

Section 172 of the Act provides that an individual may file a memorial in the High Court, provided that the memorial is authenticated by the Commonwealth court where the judgment for the payment of money was obtained from.

  1. Common law

A foreign judgment may still be enforced despite originating from a jurisdiction that does not fall within the scope of New Zealand’s statutes.  An individual may commence an ordinary proceeding or apply for summary judgment.

Recent Developments

An implied obligation to enforce foreign judgments

Yoonwoo C & C Development Corp v Huh [2025] NZCA 209

Judgments from courts in the Republic of Korea are not cable of registration in New Zealand under the REJA.  Accordingly, the appellant sought to have its judgment recognised in New Zealand pursuant to common law.  This Court of Appeal decision addresses whether a claim to recognise and enforce two Korean judgments in New Zealand was time-barred under the Limitation Act 1950 (LA 1950).  The issue is whether the claim brought by the appellant is a claim in contract under s 4(1)(a) or an action on a judgment under s 4(4) of the LA 1950.  The appellant argued for a 12-year limitation period (as an “action on a judgment”), while the respondent contended for a six-year period (as a claim in contract).  Ultimately, the Court found that Parliament must have intended for the six-year limitation period in s 4(1)(a) to apply to reflect the six-year limitation period in s 4(1) of the REJA.  The Court thus held that the six-year limitation period applied, as actions to enforce foreign judgments (falling outside New Zealand’s statutory regime) are based on an implied obligation.  In contrast, domestic judgments place the parties under an immediate obligation to comply with its terms and can be directly enforced by execution.  The appellant’s claim was therefore out of time and dismissed.

Parallel class actions across the Tasman

Whyte v a2 Milk Company Ltd [2023] NZHC 22

This case concerns competing class actions in New Zealand and Australia against a2 Milk Company Ltd (A2).  A2 allegedly made misleading or deceptive statements regarding its revenue and earnings forecasts to the Australian Stock Exchange and New Zealand Exchange Main Board.  In Australia, two opt-out class proceedings were filed in the Supreme Court of Victoria by investors who acquired or held shares in A2 during the relevant period.  These proceedings were consolidated and included claims under both Australian and New Zealand law.  The plaintiff, Mr Kevin Whyte, sought leave to commence an opt-in class action against A2 in relation to the same statements, with claims based solely on New Zealand law.  A2 applied for a stay of the New Zealand proceeding under s 24 of the TTPA, arguing that the Australian court was the more appropriate forum, given the substantively similar proceeding already underway in Australia.  The Court found that some factors leaned towards New Zealand as the preferred forum, such as the residence of the plaintiff class.  However, the Court ultimately highlighted the risks of duplication in costs and resources, and inconsistent judgments potentially arising within the course of parallel proceedings.  Accordingly, the New Zealand proceeding was stayed pending the outcome of the Australian proceeding, but leave was reserved for the New Zealand action to proceed should circumstances materially change.

Exclusions under the TTPA

Lange v Lange [2021] NZCA 447

The key issue in this case is whether the judgment ought not to have been registered because it deals with land in New Zealand, at Kaitaia, and is to be enforced against that land.  Section 61(2)(c) of the TTPA excludes registration of a judgment given in “a proceeding the subject matter of which was immovable property outside Australia.  The Court of Appeal held that the subject matter of the Australian proceeding was the establishment and distribution of the parties’ relationship property, not the New Zealand land itself.  Further, the outcome was an order for the payment of money rather than an order for the transfer of property.  As a result, the judgment was registrable and enforceable in New Zealand and the appeal was dismissed.

Enforcement of Foreign Judgments and Arbitral Awards with Recent Developments

Foreign judgments and arbitral awards are generally recognized and enforced in Taiwan, except in certain circumstances (see below). Enforcement of a foreign judgment in Taiwan is sought by initiating an action filed on such judgment for an enforcement order in a Taiwan court. The court will not re-examine the merits of the underlying dispute, nor will it review the foreign court’s findings of fact.

With respect to foreign arbitral awards, such awards may be enforced in Taiwan only after an application for recognition has been granted by the court. Similar to foreign judgments, the court’s examination thereof is limited to formal and procedural matters, without any substantive review of the arbitral award.

Circumstances in Which Foreign Judgment Will Be Denied Enforcement in Taiwan

A Taiwan court will refuse to grant an enforcement order for a foreign judgment under the following circumstances: (1) the foreign court does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter according to the laws of Taiwan; (2) if the judgment was rendered by default, unless (a) the defendant was duly served within the jurisdiction of the foreign court within a reasonable period of time in accordance with the laws and regulations of such jurisdiction, or (b) service of process was effected on the defendant with the judicial assistance of the government of Taiwan; (3) the judgment and such courts procedure resulting in the judgment are not contrary to the public order or good morals of Taiwan; (4) there is no mutual recognition between such country and Taiwan.

The term “mutual recognition” herein refers to judicial comity, not political or international law recognition. If a foreign jurisdiction has previously recognized Taiwan court judgments, or such recognition can reasonably be expected, Taiwan courts generally deem the requirement as satisfied. According to past precedents, Taiwan courts have recognized judgments rendered in the United States, the United Kingdom, Singapore, Japan, South Korea, China, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Belgium, Canada, Australia, South Africa, and other jurisdictions.

Circumstances in Which Foreign Arbitral Award Will Not Be Recognized in Taiwan

A Taiwan court may refuse to recognize a foreign arbitral award under the following circumstances: (1) recognition or enforcement of the arbitral award is contrary to the public order or good morals of Taiwan; or (2) the dispute is not arbitrable under the laws of Taiwan. In addition, if an arbitral award is rendered in, or is governed by the arbitration law of a jurisdiction that does not recognize arbitral awards from Taiwan, the Taiwan court may likewise refuse to grant recognition.

Foreign Judgments

  1. As cross-border transactions continue to grow in Southeast Asia, Thailand has become an increasingly important jurisdiction for international dispute resolution and asset recovery.  A frequently asked questions for foreign investors is whether a foreign court judgment can be enforced against a Thai party or assets located in Thailand. Under Thai law, foreign court judgments are not recognized or directly enforceable. Thailand has no reciprocal enforcement treaties and no statutory mechanism permitting foreign civil judgments to be executed domestically. Accordingly, a foreign judgment creditor must commence fresh proceedings in the Thai courts and re-prove the claim on the merits. While the foreign judgment may be submitted as prima facie evidence, the Thai court retains full discretion to reconsider factual issues, legal arguments, damages and jurisdictional matters. Only after a new Thai judgment is obtained can enforcement measures such as asset seizure or attachment proceed.

Foreign Arbitral Awards

  1. In contrast, Thailand provides a more efficient and predictable framework for enforcing foreign arbitral awards. Thailand has been a member of the New York Convention since 1959 and has adopted an enforcement-friendly regime under the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002). Thai courts practically recognize and enforce awards issued by major international arbitration institutions, including SIAC, HKIAC, ICC, LCIA, CIETAC and other tribunals seated in Convention-member states. To apply for enforcement, the award creditor must file a petition within 3 years and submit:
    • an authenticated copy of the award;
    • the arbitration agreement; and
    • certified Thai translations.
  1. The Thai courts may refuse enforcement only on limited grounds reflecting the New York Convention, such as:
  • lack of proper notice of appointment of the arbitral tribunal or of the arbitral proceedings;
  • the party was not given a fair opportunity to participate, defend the case, or present evidence and arguments;
  • the arbitration agreement is invalid;
  • the award deals with issues outside the scope of the arbitration agreement; and
  • enforcement would be contrary Thai public policy

Although “public policy” is not defined under Thai law, Thai courts have increasingly applied this ground narrowly and consistently with international practice.

  1. Recognition and enforcement proceedings typically take 12–18 months, depending on the complexity of objections raised by the counterparty.

Recent Developments in Thailand’s Enforcement Regime

  1. During period 2022–2025, Thailand has moved toward greater efficiency and international alignment in arbitration enforcement. Thai courts have taken a more restrained approach to the public-policy exception, showing increased willingness to defer to arbitral findings rather than re-evaluate factual or legal issues. The judiciary has also expanded the use of digital systems—including electronic filing, electronic service of documents, and hybrid or virtual hearings—which has reduced delays and streamlined enforcement procedures. In parallel, ongoing policy discussions involving the judiciary, the Ministry of Justice and established arbitration centers have proposed further enhancements to the Arbitration Act, such as expanding court powers to grant interim measures and strengthening institutional support for arbitration. Collectively, these developments reflect Thailand’s growing commitment to international arbitration and further improve certainty for foreign parties seeking enforcement of arbitral awards.

Resources