Cross-Border Enforcement in the GBA: A New Era for Mainland-Hong Kong Civil and Commercial Judgments

 

⚖️ Cross-Border Enforcement in the GBA: A New Era for Mainland-Hong Kong Civil and Commercial Judgments

 

The legal landscape governing cross-border dispute resolution between the Mainland of China and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region has undergone a truly significant development. This pivotal shift is anchored by the implementation of the Arrangement on Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters by the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (the "Arrangement").

In Hong Kong, the domestic legal framework for this development is encapsulated in its local counterpart, the Mainland Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap. 645) (the "Ordinance"). Collectively, these instruments constitute a new and comprehensive regime for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial judgments, marking a transformative epoch in judicial cooperation under the "One Country, Two Systems" framework.

This new regime, which came into effect on January 29, 2024, marks a fundamental shift away from the former, more restrictive framework (the 2006 Arrangement). It is a pivotal step towards greater legal certainty and a streamlined dispute resolution process within the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area (GBA) and beyond.

---

The Historical Impediment: Why the Change Was Necessary

Under the constitutional principle of "One Country, Two Systems," the judicial systems of Mainland China and Hong Kong have remained separate. While this separation ensures the preservation of Hong Kong’s common law traditions, it historically created a significant hurdle for businesses operating across the border: a judgment obtained in one jurisdiction was not automatically enforceable in the other.

The previous 2006 Arrangement (Cap. 597) was limited in scope, covering only:

1.     Monetary judgments arising from contractual disputes.

2.     Cases where the parties had agreed in writing to the exclusive jurisdiction of either a designated Mainland court or a Hong Kong court.

This "exclusive jurisdiction" requirement was a critical bottleneck, often frustrating enforcement efforts where agreements lacked such a clause or were ambiguous.

---

🔑 Key Features of the New Reciprocal Enforcement Regime

The new Arrangement and Ordinance establish a comprehensive and modern mechanism designed to significantly reduce the need for re-litigation, thereby saving time, cost, and risk for judgment creditors.

1. Abolition of the Exclusive Jurisdiction Requirement

This is arguably the most transformative change. The restrictive "exclusive jurisdiction agreement" is replaced by a more flexible jurisdictional test or sufficient connection test.

·       What this means: For a judgment to be enforceable under the new regime, the court that issued the judgment (Mainland or Hong Kong) merely needs to have had jurisdiction over the proceedings, which can be established by demonstrating a sufficient connection.

·       Examples of 'Sufficient Connection':

o   The defendant’s place of residence or principal place of business was in the original jurisdiction.

o   The place of performance of the disputed contract was in the original jurisdiction.

o   The parties agreed in writing to submit to the jurisdiction (whether exclusive or non-exclusive).

2. Expanded Scope of Judgments Covered

The new regime dramatically widens the types of civil and commercial judgments eligible for reciprocal enforcement.

Old Regime (2006 Arrangement)	New Regime (2024 Arrangement)
Monetary judgments only	Both monetary and non-monetary judgments (e.g., orders for specific performance, injunctions)
Limited to contractual disputes	Covers most civil and commercial matters, including both contractual and non-contractual (e.g., most tortious disputes)
Limited to designated courts	Expanded to include judgments from a wider range of courts and tribunals, including the Labour Tribunal, Lands Tribunal, Small Claims Tribunal, and Competition Tribunal in Hong Kong, and all basic people's courts in the Mainland.

3. Clearer Mechanism and Procedural Streamlining

The process for recognition and enforcement is now streamlined through a registration mechanism in the enforcing jurisdiction.

·       A judgment creditor applies to the Court of First Instance in Hong Kong (or the corresponding Intermediate People's Court in the Mainland) to register the judgment.

·       Once registered, the judgment is enforceable as if it were a judgment originally given by that court.

Exclusions: It is important to note that the Arrangement contains an exclusion list. Certain matters, such as specific intellectual property cases (e.g., patent infringement), insolvency/bankruptcy, and certain family matters, are generally excluded, as they are often addressed by separate, specific legal arrangements.

---

💡 Implications for the Greater Bay Area (GBA)

The new rules are of particular significance for the GBA, which relies heavily on seamless cross-jurisdictional commerce and investment.

·       Enhanced Legal Security: Businesses can now enter into contracts with greater confidence, knowing that a favourable judgment from a Hong Kong court is now much more easily enforceable against assets in Shenzhen or Guangzhou, and vice versa.

·       Reduced Litigation Risk: The higher certainty of enforcement reduces the incentive for debtors to transfer assets across the border to evade creditors, thereby lowering overall commercial risk.

·       Consolidation of Hong Kong's Status: The wide scope of coverage, particularly the inclusion of non-monetary relief and a more flexible jurisdictional test, reinforces Hong Kong's unique position as a premier international legal and dispute resolution centre for matters connected to the Mainland.

---

Future Considerations for Legal Practice

While the new Arrangement provides a robust framework, legal practitioners must remain vigilant:

1.     Review Dispute Resolution Clauses: While the need for exclusive jurisdiction is gone, parties should still carefully consider the best forum for their disputes, as the chosen court must satisfy the new jurisdictional test.

2.     Timing: The new rules only apply to judgments given on or after the commencement date of January 29, 2024. Judgments rendered before this date must still rely on the old 2006 Arrangement or the common law procedure.

3.     Grounds for Refusal: The Ordinance explicitly sets out limited grounds upon which a court may refuse or set aside registration, such as a breach of Hong Kong's public policy or a conflict with a prior enforceable judgment. These will be critical areas for legal challenge.

The implementation of the new reciprocal enforcement regime is a milestone in cross-border judicial cooperation. It provides a more pragmatic and commercially sensible approach to dispute resolution, substantially strengthening the rule of law foundations necessary for sustained economic growth across the GBA.