{"id":"F1996B00737","name":"Foreign Judgments Regulations 1992","slug":"foreign-judgments-regulations-1992","collection":"legislative_instrument","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":"321 of 1992","makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":28909,"registerId":"commonwealth-F1996B00737-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-01","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Name of regulations","content":"#### 1 Name of regulations\n\n  These regulations are the Foreign Judgments Regulations 1992.","sortOrder":0},{"sectionNumber":"2","sectionType":"section","heading":"Interpretation","content":"#### 2 Interpretation\n\n  In these Regulations:\n\n> Act means the Foreign Judgments Act 1991.\n\n> Privy Council means the Privy Council of the United Kingdom, and is taken to include the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.","sortOrder":1},{"sectionNumber":"3","sectionType":"section","heading":"Extension of Part 2 of the Act","content":"#### 3 Extension of Part 2 of the Act\n\n  Part 2 of the Act extends to each country specified in column 2 of the Schedule.","sortOrder":2},{"sectionNumber":"4","sectionType":"section","heading":"Specified superior courts","content":"#### 4 Specified superior courts\n\n  For the purposes of the Act, the courts specified in column 3 of an item in the Schedule are taken to be superior courts of the country specified in column 2 of that item.","sortOrder":3},{"sectionNumber":"5","sectionType":"section","heading":"Specified inferior courts","content":"#### 5 Specified inferior courts\n\n  (2) Part 2 of the Act extends in relation to the following inferior courts of the United Kingdom:\n    (a) County Courts (England and Wales);\n    (b) County Courts (Northern Ireland);\n    (c) Sheriff Courts (Scotland).\n  (3) Part 2 of the Act extends in relation to the following inferior courts of Canada:\n    (a) the Provincial Court of Alberta;\n    (b) the Provincial Court of British Columbia;\n    (c) the Provincial Court of Manitoba.\n  (4) Part 2 of the Act extends in relation to the following inferior courts of Switzerland:\n    (a) Bezirksgerichte;\n    (b) Erstinstanzliche Gerichte;\n    (c) Arbeitsgerichte;\n    (d) Mietgerichte.\n  (6) Part 2 of the Act extends in relation to each District Court of the Republic of Poland.","sortOrder":4}],"analysis":{"kimi_summary":{"_metrics":{"source":"grok-batch-everything"},"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The regulations have not grown beyond their original purpose; they continue to perform the precise function envisaged by the enabling Act of designating the foreign countries and courts to which the reciprocal enforcement regime in Part 2 applies."},"complexity_factors":["Heavy reliance on definitions and machinery imported from the Foreign Judgments Act 1991","Dependence on an external Schedule to specify countries and superior courts","Country-by-country listing of inferior courts using non-sequential subsection numbering that implies historical amendments"],"plain_english_summary":"**The Foreign Judgments Regulations 1992** make it easier to enforce certain overseas court decisions inside Australia. \n\nThey extend Part 2 of the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (the main law) to a list of foreign countries named in an attached Schedule. For those countries the regulations name particular courts whose decisions can be registered and enforced in Australia as if they were Australian ones. \n\nThey also name specific lower-level ('inferior') courts in the United Kingdom, Canada, Switzerland and Poland that are covered by the same enforcement rules. \n\nIn everyday terms, if someone wins a case in one of these approved foreign courts, the regulations open a faster pathway to collect money or force the loser to do (or stop doing) something in Australia. This affects anyone involved in cross-border business, international contracts or family disputes with overseas elements. It matters because it reduces uncertainty and cost compared with starting a fresh lawsuit in Australia."},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"These Regulations change the operational scope of Part 2 of the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 by specifying which countries and which courts (both particular superior courts via the Schedule and certain inferior courts by explicit lists) are treated as within Part 2 (regs 3–5). In other words, the Regulations determine the geographic and court-level boundaries of Part 2 rather than leaving those boundaries unspecified (regs 3–5)."},"complexity_factors":["Short, declarative structure with heavy reliance on an external Schedule to specify countries and courts (regs 3–4).","Cross-reference to the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 so practical effect requires reading both instruments together (reg 2 defines the Act).","Lists of specified inferior courts across multiple jurisdictions that require accurate mapping between foreign court names and the Schedule or reg 5 lists (reg 5(2)–(4), (6)).","Minimal procedural detail in the Regulations themselves — application requires consulting the Act for enforcement mechanics (regs 3–5).","Use of defined term \"Privy Council\" that clarifies historical appellate bodies but otherwise does not alter substantive coverage (reg 2)."],"plain_english_summary":"### What these Regulations do, in plain English\n\n- These Regulations give detailed effect to Part 2 of the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 by naming which foreign countries and which foreign courts are covered. The list of countries and courts appears in the Schedule to the Regulations (see reg 3 and reg 4).\n\n- The Regulations also define two terms used in that work: \"Act\" means the Foreign Judgments Act 1991, and \"Privy Council\" means the Privy Council of the United Kingdom, including the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (reg 2).\n\n- Mechanically, the Regulations make three things happen:\n  - Part 2 of the Act applies to every country that is listed in column 2 of the Schedule (reg 3).\n  - For each Schedule item, the courts named in column 3 are treated as the superior courts of the listed country for the purposes of Part 2 (reg 4).\n  - Part 2 is extended to particular inferior courts in specific countries by explicit list (reg 5(2)–(4), (6)). Those lists include specified county and sheriff courts in the United Kingdom, certain provincial courts in Canada, specified courts in Switzerland, and each District Court in Poland (reg 5).\n\nWho is affected and who decides\n\n- The Regulations affect any person or entity that seeks to rely on Part 2 of the Act to have a foreign judgment recognised or enforced in Australia: whether a foreign judgment falls within Part 2 now depends on whether it comes from a country and court set out in the Schedule or in the lists in reg 5 (regs 3–5).\n\n- Australian courts applying the Act will use these Regulations to determine whether a foreign judgment was given by a court that Part 2 treats as a superior or specified inferior court (regs 3–5).\n\nApparent purpose and how that interacts with incentives, costs and compliance\n\n- The Regulations' apparent purpose is to make predictable which foreign judgments can be brought within Part 2 of the Act by naming the covered countries and courts (reg 3–5). That creates a clear legal trigger for when Part 2 applies.\n\n- Incentives and private behaviour: by listing countries and courts, the Regulations change the set of foreign judgments that can be pursued under Part 2. Parties who hold judgments from listed courts will be able to attempt registration/enforcement under Part 2; parties with judgments from courts not listed will not get that pathway from these Regulations alone (regs 3–5).\n\n- Compliance burden and practical trade-offs: the Regulations require users of Part 2 to check the Schedule and the lists in reg 5 to establish coverage before seeking relief under the Act (regs 3–5). The Regulations themselves do not set procedures or fees; they operate as a statutory map of coverage that interacts with the Act's procedural rules.\n\n- Bureaucratic discretion and implementation risk: the Regulations place the definitive list of covered countries and courts in the Schedule (reg 3–4). Because coverage is determined by the Schedule and by the express lists in reg 5, changes to which foreign courts are covered can be made by amending the Regulations (or the Schedule) rather than by primary-legislation changes; that concentrates the mechanism for altering scope in the delegated instrument (regs 3–5).\n\n- Opportunity costs and substitution effects: expanding or narrowing the Schedule shifts where parties will apply to enforce foreign judgments (i.e., via Part 2 in Australia versus other legal routes). The Regulations do not themselves create alternative enforcement routes or fees; they simply define when Part 2 is available (regs 3–5)."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/foreign-judgments-regulations-1992","history":"/api/acts/foreign-judgments-regulations-1992/history","analysis":"/api/acts/foreign-judgments-regulations-1992/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/foreign-judgments-regulations-1992/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/foreign-judgments-regulations-1992/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/foreign-judgments-regulations-1992/documents"}}