Update: recognising a court judgment from Mainland China in Hong Kong

Since 29 January 2024, the Mainland Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap. 645) – Hong Kong's principal instrument for recognising and enforcing Mainland civil and commercial court judgments – has replaced the narrower 2008 regime. The change removed the old exclusive-jurisdiction requirement and widened the range of judgments that qualify for registration before the Court of First Instance.

What changed on 29 January 2024 – and why it matters now

The old regime required the parties to have agreed, in writing, that the Mainland court had exclusive jurisdiction. That condition excluded a large share of real-world litigation outcomes. Many groups that won Mainland judgments found those judgments unregistrable in Hong Kong, regardless of the assets sitting within reach.

Cap. 645 replaces exclusivity with a connection-based test. A wider range of Mainland civil and commercial judgments – both monetary and certain non-monetary – can now be registered directly with the Court of First Instance. The asset-endgame calculation across the corridor has shifted accordingly.

The regime applies to judgments made on or after 29 January 2024. Judgments predating that effective date fall outside its scope. Groups holding older Mainland judgments against counterparties with Hong Kong assets face a different set of options and should take a separate read of the position before acting.

There is a defined exclusion list. Insolvency-related matters, certain intellectual-property and patent disputes, certain arbitration-related decisions, succession proceedings and matrimonial matters remain outside the scope of Cap. 645. Counsel advising on the enforceability of a specific Mainland judgment should map the subject matter against those carve-outs at the outset.

In our cross-border disputes practice, we regularly see judgment creditors arrive with a valid Mainland outcome and an incorrect assumption about what happens next. The registration step before the Court of First Instance is not automatic. Procedural compliance, the form of the certified copy, and the connection grounds each require attention before the application is filed.

Who is affected across the Hong Kong–Mainland corridor

The regime is relevant to any party that has obtained – or expects to obtain – a civil or commercial judgment from a Mainland people's court and wishes to convert that judgment into an enforceable order against assets in Hong Kong. The corridor runs in both directions: Hong Kong judgments are recognised on the Mainland through a parallel mechanism.

Groups most directly affected include trading companies and manufacturers with cross-border supply-chain disputes, lenders and investors with Mainland borrowers or investee-company exposure, and family-controlled groups where a judgment in one jurisdiction needs to reach assets in the other. The removal of the exclusivity requirement means counterparties previously thought judgment-proof in Hong Kong may no longer be.

Where a matter involves arbitration rather than court litigation, the applicable regime is the 1999 Arrangement and its 2020 Supplemental Arrangement, not Cap. 645. The two tracks are distinct. Choosing the wrong track at the point of enforcement wastes time and, in some cases, forfeits priority over assets. For a detailed mapping of the arbitral-award track, see our analysis of the reciprocal enforcement regime.

The immediate action

Three steps apply now. First, identify which regime governs the judgment. Cap. 645 covers Mainland civil and commercial court judgments made on or after 29 January 2024; the arbitral-award track covers HKIAC-seated and other qualifying arbitral awards. Second, confirm whether the subject matter falls within an exclusion category. Third, assess the connection grounds that bring the judgment within the registration mechanism before proceeding to file.

Groups holding pre-2024 Mainland judgments should also review the enforcement options still available to them. The position is not hopeless, but the route differs materially from the Cap. 645 registration track.

For cross-border matters involving both a Mainland judgment and a concurrent arbitration, the sequencing of enforcement applications – and the risk of parallel proceedings affecting the same assets – requires a coordinated strategy. Our analysis on HKIAC arbitration clauses addresses how the arbitration track interacts with court-based enforcement.

For a preliminary read on how Cap. 645 applies to your judgment and the registration route available, email info@lockhartyip.com.

Speak with Lockhart & Yip

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

Related

• Disputes Arbitration
• Reciprocal Enforcement Judgments Regime Mainland Analysis
• Drafting Hkiac Arbitration Clause Cis Counterparty Cis Analysis

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