Briefing: the reciprocal enforcement of judgments regime with the Mainland

The Mainland Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap. 645) came into force on 29 January 2024, replacing the narrow 2008 choice-of-court regime and allowing a far wider range of Mainland civil and commercial judgments to be registered and enforced in Hong Kong – and Hong Kong judgments to be used in the Mainland courts.

For any group with assets, counterparties or ongoing disputes across the Mainland–Hong Kong corridor, the implications are immediate. The question is no longer whether a judgment crosses the boundary. It is whether the steps to get it there have been taken in the right order and in time.

What changed on 29 January 2024

The old regime under Cap. 597 required that the parties had agreed, in advance, to the exclusive jurisdiction of either the Mainland courts or the Hong Kong courts. That condition excluded the vast majority of commercial disputes, where jurisdiction clauses are absent, non-exclusive, or contested.

Cap. 645 removes the exclusive-jurisdiction requirement entirely. In its place, a connection-based test applies. If a Mainland judgment meets the threshold conditions – it is effective, it has a sufficient jurisdictional connection, and it does not fall within the exclusion list – a judgment creditor may apply to register it with the Court of First Instance in Hong Kong. Enforcement follows registration.

The exclusion list covers insolvency proceedings, certain intellectual-property and patent matters, certain arbitration-related proceedings, succession matters, and matrimonial disputes. Outside those categories, the regime is broad.

The regime is not retrospective. It applies to judgments made on or after 29 January 2024. Judgments predating that day remain subject to the old regime or to common-law recognition routes.

Who it affects across the corridor

The practical reach is wide. Groups with Mainland operating entities and Hong Kong holding structures now face a materially different enforcement risk in both directions. A Mainland plaintiff holding a judgment against a Hong Kong-incorporated entity – or against a principal with assets in Hong Kong – can seek registration without having secured an exclusive-jurisdiction clause in the original contract.

Equally, Hong Kong parties who obtained judgment against Mainland counterparties on or after the commencement date have a more direct enforcement route into the Mainland courts, supported by the reciprocal mechanism on the Mainland side.

In our cross-border practice, we see three recurring situations where Cap. 645 changes the calculation. First: a creditor who had written off a Mainland judgment as unenforceable in Hong Kong because there was no exclusive-jurisdiction clause. That position has now changed. Second: a Hong Kong entity that assumed its assets were insulated from Mainland proceedings by the absence of a cross-border enforcement route. That assumption warrants revisiting. Third: in-house teams who built dispute-resolution clauses around the old regime. Those clauses require review in light of the broader connection test now in force.

For cross-border disputes involving arbitration rather than court proceedings, the regime under Cap. 645 does not apply directly. The 1999 Arrangement and 2020 Supplemental Arrangement for mutual enforcement of arbitral awards continue to govern that corridor, with simultaneous enforcement applications permitted since the 2021 amendment. The relationship between the two regimes matters for any matter where the proceedings could run as either litigation or arbitration.

For further context on enforcement routes and the disputes practice more broadly, see our Disputes & Arbitration practice page. For asset-tracing considerations that follow a successful enforcement application, the briefing on post-award asset tracing in Singapore addresses adjacent steps in a regional enforcement sequence. The analysis of recognising a court judgment from a CIS jurisdiction in Hong Kong sets out the common-law recognition route applicable to judgments from jurisdictions outside the Cap. 645 regime.

The immediate action

Three steps warrant attention now.

Review your dispute-resolution clauses. Any clause drafted under the assumption that the old exclusive-jurisdiction requirement would insulate one party from cross-border enforcement should be reassessed. The connection-based test under Cap. 645 is less demanding, and the clause that once limited exposure may no longer do so.

Audit existing and anticipated Mainland judgments. If your group holds – or is likely to seek – a Mainland judgment in a civil or commercial matter commenced on or after 29 January 2024, the registration route in Hong Kong is now available. Acting on that route promptly, and in the correct sequence, is where enforcement is won or lost.

Map your asset exposure. For entities with Hong Kong assets or principals ordinarily resident in Hong Kong, the risk that a Mainland judgment creditor will seek registration in Hong Kong is now real. Asset-holding structures and the adequacy of any defence to registration should be assessed before a registration application is served.

The sequence above describes the standard position under Cap. 645. Your matter turns on the documents, the jurisdictions actually engaged, and the order of steps – which is where the route is won or lost. For a structured assessment of your enforcement or defence position across the Mainland–Hong Kong corridor, write to us at info@lockhartyip.com.

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 Singapore Singapore Briefing
• Recognising Court Judgment From Cis Hong Kong Cis 3

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