Enforcing Judgments between Denmark and England

The UK Supreme Court has removed a procedural barrier for foreign creditors pursuing debtors in England and Wales. In Drelle v Servis-Terminal LLC [2026] UKSC 29, handed down on 27 July 2026, the Court held unanimously that a foreign money judgment can support an English insolvency petition even though it has never been recognised or registered in England. For clients of Carsted Rosenberg (CRA) engaged in Nordic/UK cross-border finance, the decision matters most for Danish judgments, which often have no registration route in England at all.

The Enforcement Gap for Danish Judgments

Brexit regrettably ended the EU rules under which a Danish judgment was enforceable in England more or less automatically. The UK has since joined the Hague Judgments Convention 2019, which restored a treaty route between the UK and the EU from 1 July 2025, for proceedings begun after that date. Denmark, however, remains outside that convention. Because of the cumbersome Danish EU opt-out on justice matters, the EU's ratification does not cover Denmark, and as of the date of this briefing note, Denmark has not yet joined in its own right.

That leaves the Hague Choice of Court Convention 2005, which Denmark has joined separately. It applies only where the parties agreed an exclusive jurisdiction clause. Much international lending does not. Syndicated facilities on Loan Market Association (LMA) terms typically use asymmetric clauses, which tie the borrower to one court but allow the lenders to sue anywhere. Judgments based on such clauses generally fall outside the 2005 convention. The result: a Danish money judgment against a defaulting borrower is frequently neither recognised nor registrable in England.

Until now, that lacuna had real consequences. The Court of Appeal of England & Wales held in 2025 that a creditor in this position had to start fresh proceedings in the English courts, bring a claim on the judgment debt, obtain an English judgment, and only then present a bankruptcy or winding-up petition. That meant months of delay and a second set of legal costs before any insolvency proceedings could commence.

What the Supreme Court Decided: "A Sword, Not Merely a Shield"

The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Court of Appeal. A creditor holding an unrecognised and unregistrable foreign judgment may serve a statutory demand and present an insolvency petition directly. The case itself concerned a Russian judgment for RUB 2 billion against a company's former director. Russia, like Denmark, has no judgment registration arrangement with the UK.

The Court relied on the common law doctrine of obligation. A final judgment for a definite sum, given by a court which had jurisdiction over the debtor, creates an immediate legal obligation to pay. That obligation arises when the judgment is given. It does not wait for recognition in England. It is therefore a "debt" within section 267 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The Court also rejected the idea that foreign judgments may be used only defensively. A creditor may rely on a foreign judgment as a sword, not merely a shield. Finally, it drew a line the Court of Appeal had blurred. Insolvency proceedings do not enforce the foreign judgment itself. They open a collective process for distributing a debtor's assets among all creditors.

The case concerned personal bankruptcy, but the Court's reasoning is thought to apply equally to winding-up petitions against companies. Note that the direct route is confined to insolvency. Outside it, nothing has changed. To execute against assets in England outside an insolvency, a creditor who wants ordinary execution in England, a charging order over property or seizure of goods for example, still needs an English judgment first, obtained by suing on the Danish judgment at common law, usually by way of summary judgment.

What this Means for Nordic Lenders

A Danish money judgment can now support a statutory demand or a winding-up petition against a debtor with assets or a presence in England and Wales, without a prior English case having been brought. That saves time and cost, and it concentrates the attention of a non-performing debtor. An unpaid statutory demand raises a presumption of insolvency after three weeks.

The Drelle decision is not a free pass. The Danish judgment must be final, for a definite sum, and given by a court which had jurisdiction over the debtor in the eyes of English law. The debtor keeps the usual common law defences (fraud, breach of natural justice, English public policy) and may raise them within the insolvency proceedings. A debt which is genuinely disputed on substantial grounds will still defeat a petition. In Drelle itself the debtor ran several of these arguments, but the court initially found the debt was not genuinely disputed. The UK Supreme Court has now remitted those grounds to the Court of Appeal.

The parties should also pay attention to currency issues. Where the judgment is in Danish kroner or euro, rule 14.21 of the Insolvency Rules 2016 converts the debt into sterling at the official exchange rate on the day the insolvency commenced, and any currency movement after that date is the creditor's risk, with no claim for a later shortfall. The Danish position mirrors this only in part. Danish courts render judgment in the currency of the claim. A sterling facility renders a sterling judgment. A judgment in Danish kroner arises only where the claim itself was in Danish kroner. Under section 7 of the Danish Debt Instruments Act (gældsbrevsloven), a debtor paying in Denmark may discharge a foreign currency debt in kroner at the exchange rate on the payment date, unless the contract requires effective payment in the contract currency, which LMA-based documentation does. In a Danish insolvency context the parallel to the English rule is found in sections 38 and 40(2) of the Danish Bankruptcy Act (konkursloven), whereby claims in foreign currency are converted into kroner at the rate on the date of the bankruptcy decree, and later currency movements are the creditor's risk.

Enforcing English Judgments in Denmark

Looking in the other direction, the picture is less generous. Danish law has no equivalent of the English doctrine of obligation. Danish courts recognise and enforce foreign judgments only where a treaty or statute provides for it. The Danish Administration of Justice Act (retsplejeloven) allows the Minister of Justice to give foreign judgments binding effect by executive order (section 223a). No such order has ever been issued.

The practical position for English judgments is therefore as follows:

1. A judgment based on an exclusive jurisdiction clause is enforceable in Denmark under the 2005 convention, to which the UK and Denmark are each party in their own right.

   
   

2. A judgment based on an asymmetric clause, or on no jurisdiction clause at all, is not. The creditor must sue afresh before the Danish courts on the underlying claim. The English judgment does not bind the Danish court, although in practice it will usually carry considerable evidential weight.

Nor is there a Danish equivalent to the ruling in Drelle. A creditor filing a bankruptcy petition (konkursbegæring) with the Danish bankruptcy court (skifteretten) must show a claim which is not subject to reasonable dispute. Because an English judgment has no binding effect in Denmark, the debtor remains free to dispute the claim, and a genuinely disputed claim belongs before the ordinary courts, not the bankruptcy court.

Drafting Consequences

The drafting lesson for Nordic/UK finance parties is simple. Where enforcement in Denmark matters, an exclusive English jurisdiction clause will work. An asymmetric clause may not work. The asymmetric clause does, however, carry its own cure: it lets the finance parties sue in the debtor's home courts, so a lender pursuing a Danish debtor can take a Danish judgment from the outset and avoid cross-border enforcement altogether. (It is also one reason arbitration retains its appeal where Danish assets are the focus. Denmark enforces foreign arbitral awards under the New York Convention.)

Our View

Carsted Rosenberg views the decision as a welcome clarification of English law. It strengthens the position of Danish creditors in cross-border transactions, and it makes English insolvency proceedings a realistic first step, rather than a distant last resort, where a debtor has assets in England and Wales. Please get in touch if you would like to discuss what the decision means for a particular exposure.

Further Information

For more information on financing transactions in Denmark, please contact Michael Carsted Rosenberg or Dr. Andreas Tamasauskas at Carsted Rosenberg.

This briefing is intended to provide general information on banking and finance law in Denmark. It is not intended to provide definitive legal or tax advice. No legal, tax or business decisions should be based solely on its content. The briefing does not necessarily deal with every important topic and is not designed to provide legal or other advice. It shall not be used as a substitute for legal advice and none may be inferred. It is only intended for general information on matters of interest. While we endeavour to represent the information as accurately and correctly as possible, we cannot accept any responsibility for any errors or omissions.