Update: the reciprocal enforcement of judgments regime with the Mainland

Since 29 January 2024, the Mainland Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap. 645) governs how judgments cross the boundary between Hong Kong and the Mainland. The old requirement of an exclusive jurisdiction clause is gone. Enforcement now turns on a connection-based test – and on whether the judgment falls inside or outside the exclusion list.

What changed and when

The previous regime, which required both sides to have agreed exclusive jurisdiction before litigation, was replaced. Cap. 645 applies to judgments made on or after 29 January 2024, covering monetary and non-monetary relief alike.

The scope is broad. A Hong Kong creditor holding an effective Mainland judgment registers it with the Court of First Instance. A Mainland party seeking to give effect to a Hong Kong judgment uses a certified copy or certificate in the relevant people's court. Neither route requires a new cause of action. The judgment is the instrument.

Certain categories remain outside the regime. Insolvency, some intellectual-property matters, arbitration-related orders, succession and matrimonial proceedings are excluded. Counsel on our desk check that exclusion list as the first analytical step on any new cross-border enforcement file.

For arbitral awards, the separate 1999 Arrangement and the 2020 Supplemental Arrangement continue to govern. Since the 2021 amendment, simultaneous enforcement applications on both sides of the boundary are permitted. The judgment-enforcement and arbitral-award regimes now run in parallel. Choosing the right track at the outset matters for timing and asset preservation.

Who is affected across the corridor

Any group with counterparties, assets or operating entities on both sides of the boundary is in scope. That includes Hong Kong holding structures with Mainland operating subsidiaries, cross-border supply and distribution arrangements, and Mainland investors with Hong Kong-domiciled assets.

The removal of the exclusive-jurisdiction requirement is particularly significant for parties whose contracts pre-date the regime or whose dispute-resolution clauses name non-exclusive forums. Under the old rules, those parties faced a structural barrier. Under Cap. 645, the connection-based test opens a registration route that was previously unavailable.

In our cross-border disputes practice, we regularly see enforcement files that stall not because the judgment is weak, but because the procedural sequence was handled in the wrong order. The asset picture on the Mainland must be mapped before registration is filed. Interim measures under the Hong Kong–Mainland interim-measures arrangement – in effect since 1 October 2019 for Hong Kong-seated arbitrations – remain available and are worth considering alongside the judgment-enforcement route where time is pressing.

What to do now

Three immediate steps are relevant for in-house teams and principals with cross-border exposure.

• Review existing dispute-resolution clauses in cross-boundary contracts. Under Cap. 645, the strategic calculus has shifted. Exclusive-jurisdiction clauses are no longer a condition of enforceability, but their presence or absence still shapes the connection analysis.
• Map the asset position on both sides before any enforcement step. Registration with the Court of First Instance or filing in the Mainland people's courts requires decisions that should be made with the full asset picture in view.
• Verify whether the judgment or award falls inside or outside the exclusion list. The arbitral-award track and the judgment track carry different procedures and timelines. Running the wrong track costs time.

The sequence above describes the standard position. Your matter turns on the specific judgment, the jurisdictions engaged, and the order of steps – which is where the route is won or lost.

For a structured assessment of your enforcement position across the Mainland–Hong Kong corridor, write to us at info@lockhartyip.com.

Further analysis of related enforcement questions is available in our Disputes & Arbitration practice notes, including a detailed read on enforcing a Hong Kong arbitral award in the BVI and on drafting an HKIAC arbitration clause for a Cayman Islands counterparty.

Speak with Lockhart & Yip

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

Related

• Disputes Arbitration
• Enforcing Hong Kong Arbitral Award Bvi Bvi Analysis
• Drafting Hkiac Arbitration Clause Cayman Islands Counterparty Cayman

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