The strategic view on the reciprocal enforcement of judgments regime with the Mainland

A judgment won in the Mainland courts is an asset. But its value is determined entirely by what it can reach. For any group with counterparties, operations, or receivables on both sides of the boundary, the question of where enforcement actually lands has always been the decisive one – and since the Mainland Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance took effect on 29 January 2024, the legal architecture governing that question has shifted materially.

The reciprocal enforcement regime between Hong Kong and the Mainland, now operating under the Mainland Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap. 645), enables the registration and enforcement of effective civil and commercial judgments across the boundary in both directions, replacing the narrower Choice-of-Court regime and removing the old requirement for an exclusive jurisdiction agreement. The governing instrument came into force on 29 January 2024 and applies to judgments made on or after that date.

This analysis examines what the new regime means in commercial practice: the stakes, the mechanics, the comparative read across the two systems, and where the real exposure sits now.

What is actually at stake: the asset endgame

Enforcement is the end of litigation, not the beginning. Most analysis of the reciprocal regime focuses on procedural mechanics. That misses the commercial point.

The question a GC or principal should ask is not "can I register this judgment?" It is "where are the assets, and does registration give me real leverage over them?" For groups operating across the Mainland and Hong Kong, that question has historically been the harder one. A judgment creditor sitting on a Mainland award against a counterparty whose meaningful assets sit in Hong Kong – or vice versa – needed a route that was both legally available and practically workable. Before Cap. 645, the available route was narrow. The exclusive jurisdiction requirement under the old regime meant that parties who had not specifically agreed to exclusive Mainland or Hong Kong jurisdiction were largely outside the mutual enforcement architecture.

The commercial stakes have always been large. Mainland–Hong Kong trade and investment flows run through corporate structures that span both systems. Disputes within those structures – joint-venture breakdowns, supply-chain defaults, securities claims, property-related litigation – routinely produce judgments on one side of the boundary with the other side holding the value. The 2024 reform was a direct response to the gap between that commercial reality and the enforcement tools previously available.

In our cross-border practice, we see the asset-endgame problem in two distinct forms. The first is the creditor who wins in the Mainland courts and needs to reach Hong Kong assets. The second is the respondent who needs to understand, in structuring terms, what a Mainland judgment can actually reach. Both problems have changed since Cap. 645.

The governing instrument: what Cap. 645 actually does

The Mainland Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap. 645) operates by registration rather than re-litigation. An effective Mainland judgment – one that is final and enforceable in the jurisdiction where it was made – can be registered with the Court of First Instance of Hong Kong's High Court. Once registered, it is treated for enforcement purposes as a judgment of that court.

This is a structural point of real significance. Registration converts a foreign judgment into a domestic enforcement instrument without requiring the creditor to re-argue the merits. The Hong Kong court does not sit as an appeal court over the Mainland decision. It examines whether the registration conditions are met: the judgment must be effective, the cause of action must fall within the scope of the Ordinance, and none of the grounds for refusal must apply.

Cap. 645 also removed the old exclusive-jurisdiction requirement. The prior regime, operating under Cap. 597, required that the parties had agreed to give exclusive jurisdiction to the Mainland courts or the Hong Kong courts. That condition excluded a large proportion of real commercial disputes, where jurisdiction clauses are either non-exclusive, absent, or superseded by a submission to jurisdiction in the course of proceedings. The connection-based test under Cap. 645 is materially broader. It focuses on whether the court that issued the judgment had a recognised connection to the dispute or the parties – a test drawn from international-law principles of jurisdictional competence.

The scope of the Ordinance covers both monetary and non-monetary judgments. The exclusion list is specific: insolvency proceedings, certain intellectual property and patent matters, certain arbitration-related proceedings, succession matters, and matrimonial proceedings fall outside the regime. Commercial disputes between business parties – the core of cross-boundary exposure for most groups – are generally within scope.

For the reciprocal direction, a Hong Kong judgment creditor seeking enforcement on the Mainland submits a certified copy and accompanying certificate to the relevant people's court. The Mainland procedure is governed by the corresponding Mainland implementing measures. Understanding the mechanics on both sides of the boundary is essential; the two procedures are not identical, and the documentation requirements differ.

The sequence above describes the standard position. Your matter turns on the documents, the jurisdictions actually engaged, and the order of steps – which is where the route is won or lost. To discuss the enforcement route for your cross-border judgment position, contact info@lockhartyip.com.

How does the new regime compare to the arbitration route?

Arbitration and litigation are not substitutes. For Mainland–Hong Kong cross-border enforcement, they operate in different legal channels, and the choice between them has real strategic consequences.

The arbitral-award route between Hong Kong and the Mainland runs through the 1999 Arrangement and the 2020 Supplemental Arrangement, supplemented by the 2021 amendment permitting simultaneous enforcement applications in both jurisdictions. Hong Kong is also a party to the New York Convention, though PRC–Hong Kong awards run via the Mainland–HK Arrangements rather than the Convention. The interim-measures Arrangement, in effect since 1 October 2019, allows parties to Hong Kong-seated arbitrations to seek interim measures from Mainland courts before or during the arbitral proceedings.

The arbitration route has distinct advantages. Awards from Hong Kong-seated proceedings under the HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules – currently the 2024 Rules, effective 1 June 2024 – carry the procedural architecture of an internationally recognised institution. They can be enforced across the New York Convention network of contracting states, not only in the Mainland. A final award from a Hong Kong-seated HKIAC arbitration is not confined to the Mainland–Hong Kong corridor; it travels globally. That matters enormously for groups whose assets are distributed across multiple jurisdictions.

The litigation route under Cap. 645 has a different profile. It is available for disputes that were litigated – whether by choice or because arbitration was not agreed. It extends to non-monetary judgments. And it operates through the courts, which for some counterparties and some types of disputes is the appropriate forum. An injunction, a declaratory order, or a judgment for specific performance can potentially be registered and enforced under Cap. 645 in a way that an arbitral-award regime does not always accommodate.

The practical read: for new commercial contracts with a Mainland counterparty, the choice-of-forum clause remains the single most consequential drafting decision. HKIAC arbitration with a Hong Kong seat preserves the widest enforcement network. Where litigation is the existing or default reality, Cap. 645 has made the judgment route materially more workable than it was before 2024. The two routes are not in competition; they serve different fact patterns.

Counsel on our desk regularly assess which route applies and which is strategically preferable for a given cross-border dispute or pre-dispute structure. The answer depends on the contract, the assets, the counterparty, and the stage of the matter.

The comparative read: where Hong Kong and Mainland procedures differ

Treating the two sides of the regime as symmetrical is the most common analytical error. They are not.

Hong Kong is a common-law system. The Court of First Instance operates under adversarial procedure, English is an official language of the courts, and the doctrine of binding precedent structures the body of case law. The enforcement process for a registered Mainland judgment is handled by a court whose institutional tradition and procedural expectations are familiar to international parties and their counsel.

The Mainland courts operate under a civil-law tradition, with distinct procedural rules, evidentiary standards, and institutional relationships. A Hong Kong judgment creditor seeking enforcement on the Mainland must engage with a system whose procedural mechanics, timeline, and practical dynamics differ substantially from those of the Hong Kong courts. The documentation requirements for presenting a Hong Kong judgment to a Mainland people's court – authentication, translation, official certification – carry their own costs and timing risks.

There is also a substantive asymmetry in grounds for refusal. Both sides have public-policy grounds that can be invoked to decline registration. In practice, the scope and application of those grounds has been a recurring point of analysis. A judgment that reflects a legal principle recognised in Hong Kong common law may engage a different public-policy assessment in the Mainland courts, and vice versa.

What does this mean for the strategic read? It means that knowing the legal result on one side does not automatically predict enforceability on the other. A creditor with a Hong Kong judgment and a Mainland enforcement target needs a realistic assessment of the Mainland procedure, not a simple application of the Cap. 645 framework. The same logic runs in reverse. Asymmetry is a planning variable, not an obstacle – but only if it is identified early.

A mid-market European group had obtained a substantial judgment in the Hong Kong courts against a Mainland-based joint-venture partner following a corporate breakdown (late 2024). The group's advisers had assumed that Cap. 645 registration would follow in a straightforward sequence. In practice, the enforcement application on the Mainland side required additional procedural steps, translated and authenticated documentation, and engagement with local counsel admitted in the Mainland. We advised on the cross-border sequencing and coordinated with allied counsel admitted in the relevant jurisdiction. The matter progressed, though the timeline extended beyond the initial estimate.

Where does the enforcement risk actually sit?

Risk in the reciprocal enforcement regime is not monolithic. It concentrates in four distinct places, each of which calls for a different planning response.

The first is the scope cut. Cap. 645 has a defined exclusion list. Insolvency, certain intellectual property matters, certain arbitration-related proceedings, and matrimonial and succession matters are outside the regime. A creditor whose judgment touches any excluded category – or whose counterparty argues it does – faces a scope dispute before any enforcement step is taken. This is not a theoretical point. In our cross-border practice, we have seen scope arguments advanced as a tactical delay in registration proceedings.

The second is the effectiveness condition. Only effective – that is, final and enforceable – judgments can be registered. A judgment that is still subject to appeal on the Mainland, or whose enforcement has been stayed, does not yet meet the condition. Timing the registration application correctly – neither too early (the judgment is not yet effective) nor too late (assets have dissipated) – is a precision exercise.

The third is the public-policy ground. Both jurisdictions preserve the right to refuse registration where enforcement would be contrary to public policy. The content of that ground is fact- and jurisdiction-specific. It is a residual protection, not a routine objection, but it has genuine legal content. A creditor planning enforcement on either side should assess whether any feature of the underlying judgment or the conduct of the proceedings might trigger a public-policy argument.

The fourth – and in practice the most consequential – is the asset-location problem. Registration converts a judgment into a domestic enforcement instrument. But it does not create assets where none exist. A counterparty that has moved, dispersed, or concealed assets in anticipation of enforcement creates a factual problem that the legal mechanism cannot solve on its own. This is where interim measures, pre-registration asset-tracing, and coordination with post-award proceedings become critical. The legal architecture supports those steps; they need to be planned, not improvised.

If an earlier filing, structure or enforcement attempt produced an adverse or stalled result, a second read can identify the strategic error and the routes still open. Write to info@lockhartyip.com to discuss a re-assessment.

What foreign counsel and in-house teams get wrong

Three recurring errors define the cases that arrive on our desk after an initial approach has produced a disappointing result.

The first is treating Cap. 645 as a single-jurisdiction instrument. It is not. It is a bilateral mechanism. Understanding what it does in Hong Kong is only half the analysis. Understanding what the reciprocal side requires – in documentation, procedure, timeline, and local engagement – is equally necessary. Groups whose advisers have strong Hong Kong capability but limited Mainland procedural experience systematically underestimate the steps required on the enforcement side.

The second is failing to document the connection. Cap. 645 replaced the old exclusive-jurisdiction requirement with a connection-based test. That test requires that the issuing court had a recognised connection to the dispute. In practice, if the jurisdictional basis is not clear on the face of the proceedings record – if there is ambiguity about submission to jurisdiction, service, or the basis of the court's competence – that ambiguity will be argued on the registration application. The documentation that supports the connection needs to be identified early and preserved.

The third is conflating arbitration-related exclusions with general commercial disputes. A judgment that arises from proceedings that had an arbitration dimension – a court ruling on an arbitration agreement, a judgment following a failed stay application, a ruling on an award – may engage the arbitration-related exclusion in Cap. 645. This is a genuinely complex boundary, and it is one that in-house teams without specialist cross-border experience may not identify until the application is already filed.

The interaction with related practices matters here. Where a dispute has both an arbitration dimension and a litigation dimension, the co-ordination between the arbitral-award route under the Mainland–HK Arrangements and the judgment route under Cap. 645 requires careful analysis. Getting the sequencing wrong can foreclose options that would otherwise have been available.

Our read: the strategic implications now

The 2024 regime is a genuine structural improvement. The removal of the exclusive-jurisdiction condition alone brings a large class of disputes into the enforcement architecture that were previously excluded. For commercial parties with cross-boundary exposure, that matters.

But the regime is not a solved problem. It is a new set of tools with a defined perimeter, and the perimeter has rough edges that the courts on both sides are still working out. The exclusion list will be litigated. The public-policy ground will be tested. The connection-based test will be applied to fact patterns that were not in the minds of the drafters. That is the normal trajectory of any new legal regime, and it is where practitioners who have followed the early applications closely have a material advantage over those who have read only the headline.

What does this mean for planning? For groups that are currently in dispute with a Mainland counterparty, the first question is whether the dispute is within scope and whether the judgment, once obtained, will meet the effectiveness condition at the time enforcement is contemplated. Both questions should be modelled before, not after, committing to a litigation strategy. For groups structuring new commercial arrangements, the forum-selection analysis has shifted. The judgment route is now meaningfully more available than it was before Cap. 645. That changes the calculus for parties who historically defaulted to arbitration solely because the litigation enforcement route was too uncertain.

For asset-protection planning, the flip side is equally important. A structure designed before 29 January 2024 may have assumed that a Hong Kong judgment could not be readily enforced against Mainland assets, or vice versa. That assumption no longer holds in the same way. Structures built on it merit re-examination.

A technology-sector group with a Mainland holding chain and Hong Kong operating entities came to us in early 2025 after a supplier dispute escalated to litigation in the Mainland courts. The group needed to understand both the exposure of its Hong Kong assets to a potential Mainland judgment under Cap. 645 and the enforcement options available if it obtained a counterclaim judgment of its own. We mapped the asset exposure, assessed the connection-based test as it would apply to the likely judgment, and prepared the cross-border sequencing for both scenarios. The matter settled before trial, but the planning had materially changed the group's negotiating position.

The next move for any group with live cross-boundary litigation or a material counterparty risk in either direction is a structured enforcement audit: where are the assets, which regime applies, and what does the sequence look like from the moment a judgment becomes effective. That exercise is specific to the fact pattern; it cannot be done generically.

For a structured assessment of your cross-border enforcement position across Hong Kong and the Mainland, write to us at info@lockhartyip.com.

The interaction with arbitration and interim measures

The litigation enforcement route and the arbitration route are not alternatives. For many cross-boundary disputes, they operate in parallel – and the interaction between them is where the most significant strategic decisions are made.

The Interim Measures Arrangement, in effect since 1 October 2019, allows parties to Hong Kong-seated arbitrations to apply to Mainland courts for interim measures before or during the proceedings. This was a structurally significant development: it extended the reach of Hong Kong arbitration into the Mainland asset pool at a pre-award stage, addressing the dissipation risk that had long been the primary practical objection to Hong Kong-seated arbitration for claims with Mainland assets.

The 2020 Supplemental Arrangement on arbitral-award enforcement, and the 2021 amendment permitting simultaneous applications in both jurisdictions, extended the architecture further. A creditor with a Hong Kong-seated award can now pursue enforcement in both Hong Kong and the Mainland concurrently, without being required to exhaust one jurisdiction before engaging the other.

Where a dispute has both a litigation and an arbitration dimension – as is common in joint-venture breakdowns, where some obligations are governed by arbitration clauses and others are not – the co-ordination of steps across the two enforcement channels requires deliberate planning. An application to register a judgment under Cap. 645 and a simultaneous application to enforce an arbitral award under the Arrangements are distinct proceedings with distinct documentary requirements. Sequencing them without producing a conflict – for example, by advancing a position in the court proceedings that contradicts the arbitral record – requires close management.

Our disputes and arbitration practice regularly handles matters where the enforcement route runs across both channels. The post-award picture – including asset-tracing steps and the co-ordination of interim measures across the boundary – is addressed in detail in our briefing on post-award asset tracing in offshore structures. For the drafting side – how to construct an arbitration clause that preserves the widest enforcement options – our matter note on drafting HKIAC arbitration clauses for cross-border counterparties is a useful reference point.

Related practices

• Disputes & Arbitration – cross-boundary enforcement, arbitration, and interim measures
• Holding Structures – structuring entities to manage judgment exposure across jurisdictions

Speak with Lockhart & Yip

For a scoped view of your matter, contact info@lockhartyip.com. Discuss your matter →

Related

• Disputes Arbitration
• Post Award Asset Tracing Cayman Islands Cayman Briefing
• Drafting Hkiac Arbitration Clause Cyprus Counterparty Cyprus Matter

This publication is general information and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your situation, contact info@lockhartyip.com.