Enforcing a Mainland Chinese Judgment in Hong Kong (Cap. 645)

Enforcing a Mainland Chinese judgment in Hong Kong became far easier on 29 January 2024, when the Mainland Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap. 645) came into force. It created a broad, two-way system for recognising and enforcing judgments between Hong Kong and the Mainland, well beyond the narrow regime that existed before. This guide explains what Cap. 645 covers, what it excludes, how the registration process works, how a Hong Kong judgment is enforced on the Mainland, and how Cap. 645 sits alongside the older Cap. 597 regime. For help on a live matter, see our cross-border commercial disputes practice.

Cap. 645 implements the Arrangement on Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters signed between the Supreme People’s Court and the Hong Kong Government on 18 January 2019. Both the Ordinance and its accompanying Rules took effect on 29 January 2024. It replaces the practical effect of the earlier, much narrower Choice of Court Arrangement for cases going forward, and gives Hong Kong a comprehensive regime for enforcing Mainland civil and commercial judgments, and for having Hong Kong judgments enforced on the Mainland.

Cap. 645 applies to a judgment that is civil or commercial in nature under Mainland law. Crucially, it covers both money judgments and non-money judgments, so an order requiring the payment of a sum of money or the performance of an act can both be enforced. It also reaches the compensation or damages part of a Mainland criminal judgment. The judgment must be given by a Mainland court on or after 29 January 2024, and it must be final and enforceable on the Mainland before it can be registered here. A significant change from the old regime is that the parties no longer need an exclusive choice of court agreement for the judgment to qualify.

The Ordinance sets out a list of matters that fall outside it. The main exclusions are:

• Matrimonial and family matters, which have their own regime under Cap. 639.
• The succession, administration or distribution of a deceased person’s estate.
• Certain intellectual property matters.
• Certain maritime matters, such as marine pollution, limitation of liability for maritime claims, general average, salvage and carriage of passengers by sea.
• Corporate insolvency and reorganisation, and personal bankruptcy.
• The validity of an arbitration agreement or the setting aside of an arbitral award, and the enforcement of arbitral awards, which follow their own rules.
• Interim measures, which cannot be enforced under Cap. 645.
• Judgments arising from a choice of court agreement made before 29 January 2024, which stay under the older Cap. 597 regime (see below).

Cap. 645 uses a registration mechanism, not a fresh lawsuit. In outline:

• The judgment creditor applies to the Court of First Instance to register the Mainland judgment. The application is made without notice (ex parte), by originating summons supported by an affidavit.
• The papers include a sealed copy of the Mainland judgment and a certificate from the original Mainland court confirming that the judgment is civil or commercial and effective. That certificate carries evidential weight.
• Timing matters: registration is available where the judgment is final and enforceable, and where the default in satisfying it has occurred within the two years before the application.
• Once registered, a notice of registration is served on the judgment debtor, who then has a window to apply to set the registration aside before enforcement can proceed.

The judgment debtor can apply to set aside the registration, generally within 14 days of being served with the notice of registration (the court can extend this). The court must set the registration aside on defined grounds, which include that the Mainland court lacked the required jurisdiction, that the debtor was not properly served or given a reasonable opportunity to defend, that the judgment was obtained by fraud, that there are competing Hong Kong proceedings or an earlier Hong Kong or recognised foreign judgment on the same cause, or that enforcement would be manifestly incompatible with the public policy of Hong Kong. The court also has a discretion to refuse where the Mainland proceedings were brought contrary to a valid arbitration or jurisdiction agreement.

The regime runs both ways. To take a Hong Kong judgment to the Mainland, the judgment creditor applies to the Hong Kong court for a certified copy of the judgment and a certificate confirming that it is a Hong Kong judgment in a civil or commercial matter and is effective in Hong Kong. Those documents are then used before the Mainland courts, where enforcement is given effect through the Supreme People’s Court’s implementing judicial interpretation. This two-way street is what makes Cap. 645 genuinely useful for businesses operating on both sides of the boundary.

The older Mainland Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap. 597), in force since 2008, has not been repealed. It still applies to judgments arising from an exclusive choice of court agreement made in writing before 29 January 2024. For everything else, Cap. 645 is the regime. The practical difference is large:

Cap. 645 materially changes the calculus for anyone doing business across the boundary. A Mainland judgment is now much more likely to be enforceable in Hong Kong, and a Hong Kong judgment on the Mainland, which affects where you sue, how you draft dispute resolution clauses, and how you weigh litigation against arbitration. Two points are easy to miss: judgments from arbitration follow a separate route (see our guide to arbitration in Hong Kong), and enforcing a judgment from a jurisdiction outside the Mainland uses a different regime again. Where assets may move, a freezing order can preserve them while enforcement runs; see our guide to Mareva injunctions in Hong Kong.