Business Contracts Corporate Law Data Privacy Dispute Resolution Intellectual Property International Labour and Employment Tax and Customs Law All Practice Areas

Fabiano Deffenti Vanessa Ribeiro T. Borges Roberto La Laina Gabriela Conca Jessica Domingues de Araujo All Team Members

PT·EN Contact Us

Legal Guides / Dispute Resolution

Enforcing Australian, New Zealand, British and Canadian Judgments in Brazil

Written by Fabiano Deffenti, founding partner of Deffenti Lawyers and the only lawyer in the world admitted to practise in Australia, New Zealand, New York and Brazil.

Important: read before you begin

Brazil has no judgment-enforcement treaty with Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom or Canada. That is not an obstacle: Brazil does not require reciprocity, and judgments from all four are routinely recognised under the general regime. What defeats applications is almost always procedural, above all how the Brazilian defendant was served in the original proceedings.

We act for Australian, New Zealand, British and Canadian judgment creditors, and for the firms advising them, on recognition of their judgments by the Superior Court of Justice and enforcement against assets in Brazil.

No treaty, no reciprocity requirement: common law judgments travel to Brazil on the ordinary rules.

Common law creditors often assume that the absence of a bilateral treaty with Brazil is fatal, because their own systems tend to condition enforcement on reciprocity or on a statutory list of designated countries. Brazil works differently. Recognition of a foreign judgment (homologação de decisão estrangeira) is governed by articles 960 to 965 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the internal rules of the Superior Court of Justice (Superior Tribunal de Justiça, STJ), which apply the same requirements to every foreign judgment regardless of its country of origin. Reciprocity is not a condition.

All four jurisdictions also sit within the two Hague conventions that matter most here, on service of process and on the apostille, which makes the documentary and service position considerably cleaner than it was a decade ago. Canada is the most recent arrival: the Apostille Convention only entered into force for Canada on 11 January 2024, so older Canadian judgments may carry consular legalisation while newer ones are apostilled. This guide covers what changes, and what does not, when the judgment comes from a common law court.

Why Deffenti Lawyers

What sets us apart

Genuinely Fluent in English

Our team is fully fluent in English and Portuguese. There are no language barriers, no misunderstandings, just clear, precise communication from start to finish.

International Expertise

We understand both Brazilian law and the expectations of international clients. Our clients come from the UK, US, Australia, the Netherlands, the UAE, Singapore and beyond.

A Boutique Approach

As a boutique firm, we offer genuine partner-level attention. Your matter is handled by experienced lawyers, not passed down to junior staff.

Cross-Border Reach

With offices in São Paulo and Brisbane, we are well placed to serve clients across multiple time zones, seamlessly bridging Australia, the Americas, Europe and Asia.

End-to-End Service

From structure selection and tax planning to BACEN registration, director appointments, trademarks and banking. We cover every aspect of your Brazilian set-up.

Practical & Creative

We handle complex cases and find practical, creative solutions tailored to the real-world needs of each client, not generic, off-the-shelf advice.

Jurisdictions our senior partner is admitted in

10+

Countries our clients come from

Offices: São Paulo & Brisbane

Our Team

Unique multi-jurisdictional expertise

Fabiano Deffenti

Founding Partner

Our founding partner, Fabiano Deffenti, is the only lawyer in the world admitted to practise in Brazil, Australia, New Zealand and New York, giving Deffenti Lawyers an unmatched perspective for clients operating across these markets. Fabiano also edits LawsofBrazil, a widely read resource on Brazilian law for international audiences.

Key Considerations

What common law creditors need to know

The recognition requirements are the same for every country. What differs is which of them tend to cause trouble for judgments from common law systems, and those are the points below.

The most common misconception

No treaty, and none needed

Brazil has bilateral or regional judicial cooperation instruments with a number of countries, but not with Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom or Canada. This changes nothing of substance: the STJ applies articles 960 to 965 of the Code of Civil Procedure to all foreign judgments alike, and the absence of a treaty is not a ground of refusal. Judgments from all four jurisdictions are recognised in practice.

Reciprocity is not a requirement

Unlike the statutory schemes in each of the four countries, Brazilian law does not ask whether Brazil's judgments would be enforced in the country of origin. A creditor does not need to prove reciprocal treatment, and the fact that Brazil is not a designated country under, for example, the Australian or New Zealand reciprocal-enforcement statutes is irrelevant to the Brazilian application.

Effectiveness at origin, not finality

Article 963(III) requires the decision to be effective in the country where it was given. The STJ has held that this replaced the older requirement of trânsito em julgado in article 216-D(III) of its internal rules. A judgment under appeal is not automatically disqualified; what defeats recognition is a decision whose effects have been stayed at origin, so a stay pending appeal in the English, Australian, New Zealand or Canadian proceedings is the real risk to manage.

Where most applications fail

Service on a Brazil-resident defendant is the decisive issue

Where the defendant was in Brazil when the original proceedings were served, service must have been effected through a letter rogatory or the Hague Service Convention, to which all five countries are party. The Corte Especial restated the rule in February 2026: service by registered post on a defendant domiciled in Brazil is irregular, and an irregular citação offends national public policy and bars recognition (judgment of 10 February 2026, STJ Informativo 891 of 2 June 2026). Common law practice permits service by post, by courier, by email and, increasingly, by alternative electronic means, and any of these on a Brazil-resident defendant will very likely defeat recognition later. Default judgments obtained after such service attract particularly close scrutiny.

Default and summary judgments

A judgment in default is recognisable, provided the default was lawfully established and service was regular. Summary judgment, striking out and judgment on admissions present no special difficulty either: the STJ does not review the merits, so the fact that the foreign court decided without a full trial is not itself an obstacle. The question is always whether the defendant was properly summoned and had the opportunity to be heard.

Punitive and exemplary damages

Compensatory awards, including costs and interest, are ordinarily recognised. Awards of a punitive or exemplary character, more familiar from Canadian and, in narrow circumstances, English and Australian practice, can attract public policy scrutiny under article 963(VI). Because the STJ can grant partial recognition, an objectionable head of relief need not defeat the rest of the judgment, and the application should be framed with that in mind.

Injunctions, freezing orders and non-money relief

Common law creditors frequently hold interim relief, such as a freezing or search order, alongside or before final judgment. Interim and provisional measures are not recognised through homologação; they follow the separate route in article 962, and urgent protection in Brazil is usually better obtained by applying directly to the Brazilian courts. Anti-suit injunctions directed at Brazilian proceedings are unlikely to be given effect.

Exclusive Brazilian jurisdiction

Recognition is refused where the judgment intrudes on the matters reserved to Brazilian courts by article 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure: actions concerning immovable property situated in Brazil; in succession, confirmation of a private will and the inventory and partition of assets situated in Brazil; and, in divorce, judicial separation or dissolution of a stable union, the partition of assets situated in Brazil. A foreign order purporting to deal with Brazilian land or with the partition of Brazilian estate assets will not be recognised in that part.

Documents: apostille and sworn translation

The judgment and the evidence of service and effectiveness must be apostilled and accompanied by a sworn translation (tradução juramentada) into Portuguese. All four countries are parties to the Apostille Convention, but note the dates: the United Kingdom since 1965, Australia since 1995, New Zealand since 2001 and Canada only since 11 January 2024. The competent authority is DFAT in Australia, the Department of Internal Affairs in New Zealand, Global Affairs Canada in Canada and the FCDO in the United Kingdom. For older Canadian material, check whether consular legalisation was used instead.

The Federal Prosecution Service intervenes

Under article 216-L of the STJ's internal rules, the Federal Prosecution Service (Ministério Público Federal) receives the file for ten days and may oppose the application. Its opinion is a fixed step in every recognition proceeding. The Attorney General's Office is not a mandatory participant in a proceeding between private parties.

Currency, interest and indexation

A judgment expressed in Australian, New Zealand, Canadian dollars or pounds sterling is enforced in Brazil in reais, converted at the applicable rate, with Brazilian rules on monetary correction and default interest applying to the enforcement phase. Contractual interest awarded by the foreign court is generally preserved as part of the recognised obligation, but the mechanics of conversion and updating should be modelled early, since they can materially change the sum actually recovered.

Enforcement after recognition

Once recognised, the judgment is enforced before the federal court of the debtor's domicile or assets, using the ordinary toolkit: electronic account freezing through SISBAJUD, vehicle restrictions through RENAJUD, real estate restrictions through CNIB, and, where the facts justify it, piercing the corporate veil. Asset intelligence gathered while the recognition proceeds is what makes the enforcement phase move quickly.

The above is a summary of the main issues only. Whether a particular Australian, New Zealand, British or Canadian judgment is worth taking through recognition depends on the service history, the heads of relief awarded and, above all, on what the debtor actually holds in Brazil. We assess all three together before recommending that a client commit to the process.

Worth knowing: the reverse direction

Brazil is not a designated country under the United Kingdom's Administration of Justice Act 1920 or Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933, under Australia's Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth), or under New Zealand's reciprocal enforcement legislation, and Canada applies its common law rules following Morguard and Beals. A Brazilian judgment is therefore enforced in each of those countries by common law action on the judgment debt, rather than by registration. Our founding partner is admitted in Brazil, Australia, New Zealand and New York, which lets us advise on both directions of the same dispute.

Realistic Timeline: From Common Law Judgment to Brazilian Enforcement

Phase 1

Preparation & documents

4 to 8 weeks

Service history reviewed against the Hague Service Convention, evidence of effectiveness at origin obtained, judgment apostilled and sworn-translated and the debtor's Brazilian assets mapped.

Phase 2

STJ recognition

6 to 18 months (uncontested)

Application filed, defendant cited, Federal Prosecution Service opinion delivered and recognition granted by the Presidency where uncontested. Contested cases go to the Corte Especial.

Phase 3

Enforcement

Variable

Enforcement before the federal courts, with account freezing through SISBAJUD, liens over vehicles and real estate and negotiated settlement where the leverage supports it.

Official Sources

Where the rules come from

Brazil

Superior Tribunal de Justiça, the court with exclusive competence to recognise foreign judgments
Code of Civil Procedure (Law 13,105/2015), articles 960 to 965 and article 23

Hague Conference (HCCH)

Service Convention, the channel for serving process in Brazil
Apostille Convention, and the competent authority in each country

Apostille authorities

Australia: DFAT
New Zealand: DIA Authentication Unit and MFAT

Canada: Global Affairs Canada
United Kingdom: FCDO Legalisation Office

2026 case law

STJ Informativo 891 (2 June 2026): service by letter rogatory
STJ, Corte Especial (4 February 2026): who may apply
Brazil: Ministry of Justice (central authority)

Common Questions

Frequently asked questions from Australian, New Zealand, British and Canadian creditors

The questions common law judgment creditors and their advisers ask us most often.

Can an Australian, New Zealand, British or Canadian judgment be enforced in Brazil?

Yes. Judgments from all four are recognised in Brazil in practice. They are not registered as under a reciprocal-enforcement statute: they must first be recognised by the Superior Tribunal de Justiça under articles 960 to 965 of the Code of Civil Procedure, then enforced before the federal courts.

Does Brazil require a treaty with my country?

No. Brazil has no judgment-enforcement treaty with Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom or Canada, and none is needed. The same requirements apply to judgments from every country.

Does Brazil require reciprocity?

No, and this is the point common law creditors most often get wrong. Brazilian law does not ask whether Brazil's judgments would be enforced in the country of origin. That Brazil is not a designated country under the Australian, New Zealand or UK reciprocal-enforcement statutes is irrelevant to the Brazilian application.

What is the single biggest reason applications fail?

Service. Where the defendant was in Brazil, service must have been effected by letter rogatory or under the Hague Service Convention. Common law practice permits service by post, courier and email, and any of those on a Brazil-domiciled defendant will very likely defeat recognition years later. The Corte Especial confirmed the position again in February 2026.

Does a pending appeal at home stop recognition in Brazil?

Not by itself. Article 963(III) requires the decision to be effective where given, not final and unappealable. The risk to manage is a stay of execution at origin, because a decision whose effects are suspended cannot be recognised.

Will Brazil recognise punitive or exemplary damages?

Compensatory awards, including costs and interest, are ordinarily recognised. Punitive or exemplary components can attract public policy scrutiny under article 963(VI). Because the STJ can grant partial recognition, an objectionable head of relief need not defeat the rest.

Who issues the apostille on my judgment?

Australia: the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. New Zealand: the Department of Internal Affairs' Authentication Unit, with checks by MFAT. Canada: Global Affairs Canada. United Kingdom: the FCDO Legalisation Office. The Apostille Convention only entered into force for Canada on 11 January 2024, so older Canadian documents may carry consular legalisation instead.

Can I get a freezing order in Brazil while recognition is pending?

Yes, but not by exporting your domestic freezing order. Foreign interim measures are not recognised through homologação; they follow article 962. Urgent asset protection is sought directly from the Brazilian courts, and the STJ can also grant urgent measures during the recognition proceeding.

Can a Brazilian judgment be enforced in Australia, New Zealand, the UK or Canada?

Yes, but by common law action on the judgment debt rather than by registration, because Brazil is not a designated country under the UK's Administration of Justice Act 1920 or Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933, under Australia's Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth), or under New Zealand's reciprocal enforcement legislation. Canada applies its common law rules following Morguard and Beals.

Get Started

Holding a judgment from Australia, New Zealand, the UK or Canada?

We assess recognition prospects, review the service history that usually decides them, run the STJ application and enforce against Brazilian assets, working alongside your existing counsel. Reach out and one of our lawyers will review your judgment.

More dispute resolution guides

All Guides →

Enforcing a foreign judgment in Brazil

Litigating in Brazil

Arbitrating in Brazil

Brazilian lawyers for foreign companies, investors and law firms.

São Paulo

Rua Quintana, 887/32
São Paulo SP 04569-011, Brazil
+55 11 5505 2485
info@deffenti.com

Brisbane

Level 34, 1 Eagle Street
Brisbane QLD 4000, Australia
+61 7 3040 9301
info@deffenti.com

Links

Legal Guides Practice Areas Team Terms of Use