A practical guide to the reciprocal enforcement of judgments regime with the Mainland

A judgment won in Hong Kong against a Mainland counterparty is only as useful as the assets it can reach. For years, the gap between obtaining that judgment and enforcing it across the boundary was one of the most persistent frustrations in cross-border litigation. That changed on 29 January 2024, when the Mainland Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap. 645) came into force and replaced the old 2008 regime.

The reciprocal enforcement of judgments regime with the Mainland, now governed by Cap. 645, allows effective Mainland civil and commercial judgments to be registered directly with the Court of First Instance in Hong Kong – and Hong Kong judgments to be used in Mainland courts – without needing an exclusive jurisdiction clause, which was the principal gate that blocked most creditors under the old rules.

This guide sets out the decision the reader faces, the sequence of steps, the gates at each stage, and the errors that routinely stall or defeat a creditor's position. It is written for in-house counsel and principals who hold – or expect to hold – a judgment or award with cross-boundary enforcement exposure.

What is the legal position and which instrument governs?

The Mainland Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap. 645) is the governing statute on the Hong Kong side. It came into force on 29 January 2024 and applies to judgments made on or after that date. Earlier judgments are not covered; creditors holding pre-commencement judgments must assess whether any alternative route – including re-litigation or a fresh application based on the underlying facts – remains available.

The old regime under the predecessor ordinance required the parties to have chosen the Mainland courts or the Hong Kong courts exclusively in their contract. That requirement has gone. Cap. 645 replaces it with a connection-based test: a sufficient nexus between the judgment debtor, the transaction or the subject matter and the court that issued the judgment. In our cross-border practice, this single change opens enforcement for the majority of ordinary commercial disputes that lacked a carefully drafted jurisdiction clause.

On the Mainland side, the corresponding arrangement was implemented through Supreme People's Court judicial interpretation. The two instruments together create a bilateral channel. Neither side operates unilaterally; the regime is genuinely reciprocal.

There is an important exclusion list. Cap. 645 does not apply to insolvency proceedings, certain intellectual-property matters, certain arbitration-related determinations, succession matters, or matrimonial proceedings. If your judgment falls into one of those categories, the enforcement route is different – and, in some cases, remains subject to older mechanisms or requires fresh proceedings. Counsel on our desk regularly check this threshold before advising a client to file.

How do you decide which route to take: Cap. 645, arbitration, or re-litigation?

Before committing to a Cap. 645 registration, an in-house team should ask a prior question: is this judgment the right instrument to enforce, or would a different route produce a better result faster?

The decision turns on three variables: the type of relief, the location of the assets, and the quality of the underlying judgment.

Where the underlying obligation is a debt or a damages award and the debtor's assets sit predominantly in the Mainland, Cap. 645 registration in Hong Kong is typically the logical first step if enforcement of a Hong Kong judgment is sought. It brings the judgment into the Hong Kong court system and creates an enforceable local judgment that can then be transmitted to the Mainland through the mutual-recognition framework.

Where, by contrast, the dispute arose from a contract with an arbitration agreement (a clause submitting disputes to binding arbitration), the arbitral-award enforcement route may be preferable. The 1999 Arrangement and its 2020 Supplemental Arrangement govern mutual enforcement of arbitral awards between the Mainland and Hong Kong. Since a 2021 amendment, simultaneous enforcement applications are permitted, which gives an award creditor the ability to pursue enforcement in both jurisdictions in parallel rather than sequentially. For time-sensitive asset-preservation situations, the Interim-Measures Arrangement – in effect since 1 October 2019 – allows a party to a Hong Kong-seated arbitration to seek preservation orders from Mainland courts before or during the proceedings. That mechanism does not depend on Cap. 645 at all.

Re-litigation – commencing fresh proceedings in the Mainland on the underlying cause of action – is rarely the first choice. It is slow, costly, and exposes the creditor to Mainland procedural timelines without any guarantee of the original outcome. It becomes relevant only where the judgment or award is unenforceable on its face, or where the limitation period for the original claim has not expired and the underlying liability is stronger than the existing judgment document.

A practical decision matrix:

Situation A: you hold a final Hong Kong court judgment, made on or after 29 January 2024, in a civil or commercial matter outside the exclusion list, and the debtor has Mainland assets – use Cap. 645 registration, then transmit to the Mainland courts for local enforcement steps.

Situation B: you hold an HKIAC arbitral award and the debtor has assets in both the Mainland and Hong Kong – use the 2020 Supplemental Arrangement for simultaneous enforcement in both jurisdictions; for urgent asset preservation, apply under the Interim-Measures Arrangement.

Situation C: your judgment pre-dates 29 January 2024 – assess whether the 2008 regime applies (it required exclusive jurisdiction), whether re-litigation is viable, or whether you can obtain a fresh judgment on an ancillary issue that does fall under Cap. 645.

Situation D: your matter falls within the exclusion list – take specialist advice; the route depends on the specific category.

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.

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

What is the step-by-step sequence for registering a Mainland judgment in Hong Kong?

Under Cap. 645, the registration of an effective Mainland civil or commercial judgment with the Court of First Instance is the operational core of the Hong Kong side of the regime. The sequence runs as follows.

Step 1: verify that the judgment is "effective". A Mainland judgment is effective when it is enforceable under Mainland law – broadly, when the appeal period has expired or an appeal has been determined. A judgment that is still subject to active reconsideration or retrial proceedings is not effective in the required sense. This is a gate that is easily overlooked: a creditor sometimes applies prematurely, before the Mainland court has finalised the procedural status.

Step 2: check the exclusion list and the connection-based test. Before filing, confirm that the judgment category is not excluded by Cap. 645 and that the issuing Mainland court's jurisdiction was grounded in a sufficient connection to the subject matter or the parties. The connection-based test replaced the old exclusive-jurisdiction requirement, but it is not a blank cheque: if the Mainland court's assertion of jurisdiction was procedurally irregular or lacked any recognised connection basis, the Hong Kong court may refuse registration.

Step 3: gather the required documents. A certified copy of the Mainland judgment and a certificate issued by the Mainland court (in the prescribed form) are the core documents. The certificate confirms the judgment's enforceability status and the basis of the Mainland court's jurisdiction. Translation into English (the working language of the Hong Kong courts) or Chinese is required for the court file. Missing or defective documents are the single most common reason for an application to stall; prepare them before filing, not after.

Step 4: file the registration application with the Court of First Instance. The application is made to the Court of First Instance of the High Court. It is generally an ex parte application (made without notifying the debtor at this stage). The court examines the filing; if the formal requirements are met, it registers the judgment.

Step 5: serve notice on the judgment debtor. After registration, notice must be served on the judgment debtor. The debtor then has a defined window within which to apply to set aside the registration. The grounds for setting aside are circumscribed – they include fraud in obtaining the original judgment, a violation of natural justice, public policy, or conflict with another judgment – but a creditor should not assume that registration is final until the set-aside window has closed.

Step 6: proceed to enforcement. Once the registration is final, the Mainland judgment stands as if it were a Hong Kong judgment. The full range of Hong Kong enforcement mechanisms becomes available: garnishment of bank accounts, charging orders over property or shares, appointment of a receiver, or writ of execution against goods. The creditor selects the mechanism appropriate to the debtor's Hong Kong asset profile.

For the reverse direction – using a Hong Kong judgment in the Mainland – the creditor obtains a certified copy and a certificate from the issuing Hong Kong court and presents these to the competent Mainland people's court for recognition and enforcement. The Mainland procedural requirements are different from the Hong Kong registration process and should be checked with allied counsel admitted to the relevant Mainland jurisdiction.

For more on dispute-resolution and enforcement strategy, see our Disputes & Arbitration practice.

What are the gates that most commonly block or delay enforcement?

The regime is considerably more accessible than its predecessor. That does not mean it is automatic. In our cross-border practice, the following gates account for the majority of stalled applications.

The "effective judgment" gate. Applying before the judgment is effective in the Mainland sense is the most common procedural error. Mainland courts do not always issue a status certificate promptly; the creditor may have to make a specific request for the certificate and wait for the relevant appeal or reconsideration period to expire. Filing too early means the application cannot proceed; the creditor loses time and, potentially, priority.

The exclusion list. In-house teams often assume that any commercial judgment qualifies. Insolvency-related judgments, certain patent disputes, and matrimonial matters are excluded. A judgment that touches on an excluded category – even as a subsidiary issue – can trigger a refusal. The prudent course is to categorise the judgment precisely before filing, not during argument.

The connection-based test. The old exclusive-jurisdiction requirement is gone, but the connection test has substance. Where the Mainland court's jurisdiction was based on a tenuous or contested connection, the Hong Kong court may scrutinise the jurisdictional basis more closely. A judgment issued by a court with no obvious connection to the parties or the dispute is a risk point.

Natural justice and fraud. If the debtor can show that it was not given proper notice of the Mainland proceedings, or that the judgment was obtained by fraud, the Hong Kong court has grounds to refuse or set aside registration. These are high bars, but they are real ones. In our experience, where a debtor has known about proceedings but deliberately absented itself, the natural justice argument is harder to run.

Timing and asset dissipation. Cap. 645 does not freeze assets during the registration process. A debtor who becomes aware that a creditor is pursuing registration may move assets in the window between the application and service of notice. Creditors with time-sensitive positions should consider whether interim relief – a Mareva injunction (a court order freezing specified assets), available from the Hong Kong courts – should be sought alongside or before the registration application.

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.

For a preliminary read on your enforcement position, email info@lockhartyip.com.

How does this interact with arbitration and the HKIAC rules?

Many cross-border commercial contracts between Hong Kong parties and Mainland counterparties contain an arbitration clause rather than a jurisdiction clause. Where that is the case, the judgment enforcement route under Cap. 645 does not apply: there is no court judgment to register. The creditor's enforcement instrument is the arbitral award, and the applicable regime is the Mainland–Hong Kong arbitral-award arrangement.

The 1999 Arrangement and 2020 Supplemental Arrangement create a bilateral mechanism for mutual enforcement of arbitral awards. The Supplemental Arrangement, following its 2021 amendment, permits simultaneous enforcement applications in both Hong Kong and the Mainland. That is a significant practical advance: under the original 1999 framework, a creditor had to choose one jurisdiction first and could only move to the other after the first application was determined. Simultaneous filing shortens the overall enforcement timeline where assets are spread across both jurisdictions.

The Interim-Measures Arrangement, in force since 1 October 2019, allows parties to a Hong Kong-seated arbitration – including HKIAC-administered proceedings – to apply to Mainland courts for preservation orders over assets, evidence, or conduct. This mechanism is available before or during the arbitration, not only at the enforcement stage. For creditors who know that a debtor's assets are predominantly on the Mainland, interim-measures applications are often worth filing early in the process.

The HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules (2024 Rules, effective 1 June 2024) include an emergency arbitrator mechanism: urgent interim relief ordinarily completed within 14 days of file transmission. That mechanism is effective for Hong Kong-seated proceedings and can be used to obtain an interim award before the full tribunal is constituted. It does not directly engage Mainland courts, but it creates an enforceable interim award that can anchor a subsequent Mainland preservation application under the Interim-Measures Arrangement.

For groups that have not yet finalised their dispute-resolution clause, the choice between a jurisdiction clause (which engages Cap. 645) and an arbitration clause (which engages the arbitral-award arrangements) should be made with enforcement at the design stage, not after a dispute arises. The enforcement landscape for each route is now well-developed; the choice turns on the specific counterparty, the asset profile, and the nature of the potential dispute.

See also our note on the expedited procedure under the HKIAC Rules for time-sensitive disputes, and our briefing on enforcing a Hong Kong arbitral award in the UAE.

What does a common mistake look like – and how is it avoided?

A manufacturing group with its operating entities in a Mainland province and a Hong Kong holding company signed a long-term supply agreement with a Mainland distributor. The agreement had no jurisdiction clause and no arbitration clause – a common feature in domestic-looking contracts that parties did not anticipate would need cross-border enforcement. When the distributor defaulted and the group obtained a judgment from the relevant Mainland intermediate people's court, it assumed the judgment could be used directly in Hong Kong without further steps.

It could not. A Mainland judgment, however clear and final, does not automatically have effect in Hong Kong. The group had to apply to register the judgment under Cap. 645, gather the required Mainland court certificate, prepare certified translations, and file with the Court of First Instance. Because the group acted before verifying that the judgment was "effective" in the Mainland procedural sense – the appeal window had not yet closed – the first filing was premature and had to be withdrawn. The delay allowed the distributor's Hong Kong-side assets to reduce in value through ordinary trading activity.

What the group should have done: immediately upon obtaining the Mainland judgment, instruct counsel to verify the effectiveness status and simultaneously consider whether a Mareva injunction over the distributor's Hong Kong assets should be sought on an urgent basis. Both steps are available under Cap. 645 and the general jurisdiction of the Hong Kong courts. Running them in sequence rather than in parallel cost the group a window.

The pattern recurs in our cross-border disputes practice. The most expensive mistake in cross-boundary enforcement is not a legal error – it is a timing error. The legal error is usually correctable; the asset that has moved is not.

A short decision checklist before you file

Before initiating a Cap. 645 registration application, an in-house team or its counsel should be able to answer each of the following questions affirmatively.

Is the judgment effective? Confirm that the relevant Mainland appeal and reconsideration periods have expired and that the judgment is enforceable under Mainland law. Obtain the Mainland court's certificate to that effect before filing in Hong Kong.

Is the judgment within scope? Confirm that the subject matter is a civil or commercial matter and that it does not fall within the exclusion list under Cap. 645 – insolvency, certain intellectual property, certain arbitration-related matters, succession, matrimonial. Where the categorisation is borderline, take advice before filing.

Does the judgment meet the connection-based test? Confirm that the Mainland court that issued the judgment had a sufficient connection to the parties or the subject matter as required by Cap. 645. If the jurisdictional basis of the Mainland court is uncertain, assess the risk of a set-aside application before committing resources to registration.

Are the documents complete? Assemble the certified copy of the judgment, the court certificate in the prescribed form, and all required translations. File the complete package; do not plan to supplement after filing.

Should you apply for interim relief? If there is a risk that the debtor will move assets between the date of application and the date on which notice is served and the set-aside window closes, consider a Mareva injunction application in parallel. This requires separate grounds – the debtor's asset-removal risk must be demonstrable – but the option should be assessed at the outset, not after assets have moved.

Is the correct route actually Cap. 645? If the underlying contract contained an arbitration clause, the award enforcement route via the Mainland–Hong Kong arbitral-award arrangements may be more appropriate. Identify the instrument and confirm the route before filing.

Have you considered both directions? Cap. 645 operates in both directions. If you hold a Hong Kong judgment and need to enforce against Mainland assets, a different procedural path applies: certification by the Hong Kong court and presentation to the relevant people's court. Clarify the direction at the outset; the steps and the documentary requirements differ.

Related practices

• Disputes & Arbitration – cross-border enforcement, arbitration, and interim-measures strategy across Greater China
• Holding Structures – structuring Hong Kong and offshore holding entities for cross-border enforcement resilience

Speak with Lockhart & Yip

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

Related

• Disputes Arbitration
• Expedited Procedure Under Hkiac Rules
• Enforcing Hong Kong Arbitral Award Uae Uae Briefing

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