Cross-border debt recovery starts with an honest read of the file, not a demand letter. When a business counterparty in another country stops paying, the creditor needs to know whether the claim, the debtor and the assets line up before any recovery step follows. This is what we assess first.
The work is assembled to fit the claim, not sold as a fixed package with every stage included regardless of need.
The file opens with a claim assessment. It sets out what the contract and the correspondence say, what the debtor appears to hold, and how a court or an arbitral tribunal is likely to treat the dispute.
Each stage produces a decision point rather than a sunk cost. A client who stops after the assessment has still learned whether the claim is worth pursuing, which is often the more valuable answer.
Many creditors believe that a judgment obtained at home settles the matter, and that recovery abroad follows automatically once the paperwork is translated and stamped by the right official. On that view, winning the case is the hard part, and everything after that is administrative.
A judgment is a starting point, not an outcome. Recognition abroad depends on the instrument in force between the two countries and on whether the debtor still holds assets a court there can reach. It also depends, in every case, on the applicable limitation periods in cross-border claims. Some countries recognise a foreign judgment directly under a treaty or a regulation. Others require the creditor to bring a fresh claim on the merits and treat the foreign judgment as evidence at best. We confirm which route applies before advising, rather than assuming that a domestic judgment travels on its own.
The fee basis is agreed before instruction and set out in writing, rather than assumed from a rate card that does not fit the file. Assessment, pre-legal work, litigation or arbitration and enforcement are priced as separate decisions, so the client is never committed beyond the stage already approved.
A claim that looks small on the invoice can still justify assessment if the debtor is solvent and the evidence is clean. A large claim against an insolvent debtor can justify nothing at all. The fee model exists to let the client stop at any stage without losing what was already paid for, since each stage delivers a usable answer on its own.
Where a country restricts a fee based solely on the outcome, the structure is set to fit that rule rather than around it. The client is told which model applies before the file opens.
Work runs through admitted lawyers and licensed providers in the jurisdiction concerned, coordinated from one file rather than handed off between offices and forgotten. The creditor deals with one point of contact throughout, even where several countries are involved in the same claim.
Recognition of a judgment or an award follows whichever instrument actually applies between the two countries. Some jurisdictions apply the Brussels I Recast Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 for recognition within the European Union. Others apply the New York Convention 1958 for arbitral awards. A third group recognises neither instrument and requires a fresh claim on the merits before anything can be enforced. Which route applies is confirmed for the specific pair of countries before any fee is proposed.
Where the debtor has already stopped responding to a demand, international debt collection can run in parallel with the legal assessment, coordinated from the same file rather than treated as a separate track with its own timetable.
Timing depends on the debtor's country, whether the claim is contested, and whether enforcement is needed after judgment. We give a realistic estimate once the claim assessment is complete, rather than a fixed timetable set in advance.
If the debtor has no assets we can identify anywhere, recovery is not worth pursuing regardless of how strong the underlying claim is. This is exactly what the assessment stage is built to establish before any further cost is committed.
No. Recognition depends on the instrument in force between the two countries, or on bringing a fresh claim where no such instrument applies. We confirm the applicable route for the specific pair of countries before advising.
An unpaid invoice does not become easier to collect while the shipment file sits untouched and the limitation period keeps running against it. The debtor's balance sheet does not wait for a decision on which forum to use, and the evidence a court will eventually want does not preserve itself.