Since 29 January 2024, Hong Kong has operated a significantly expanded statutory framework for recognising and enforcing civil and commercial judgments from Mainland China, governed by the Mainland Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap. 645). This regime – commonly referred to as the REJ Ordinance – replaces the narrower arrangement that had been in place since 2008 and broadens the scope of enforceable judgments considerably. Parties holding an unpaid Mainland judgment now have a clearer, more direct path to enforcement in Hong Kong, though the regime contains open questions that practitioners and creditors should understand before choosing their enforcement strategy.
From the 2008 Arrangement to Cap. 645: What Changed on 29 January 2024
The predecessor arrangement, implemented through the Mainland Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap. 597), was limited to money judgments from specifically designated Mainland courts where the parties had entered into an exclusive jurisdiction agreement. That restriction excluded a large proportion of commercial disputes resolved in Mainland China, leaving creditors to rely on the common-law route – bringing a fresh action in the Hong Kong High Court based on the Mainland judgment as a debt – as their primary practical option.
Cap. 645 removes the exclusive jurisdiction agreement requirement as a universal precondition. It extends coverage to a broader category of civil and commercial judgments, including non-money judgments in defined circumstances. The Ordinance also introduces a streamlined registration procedure at the High Court of Hong Kong, designed to reduce the procedural friction that characterised the older regime. Registration, once granted, gives the judgment the same force as a Hong Kong judgment, allowing creditors to deploy the full range of enforcement tools available under Hong Kong procedural law.
Importantly, the common-law action on a debt survives as a parallel route. A judgment creditor may still issue fresh High Court proceedings in Hong Kong treating the Mainland judgment as evidence of a liquidated debt. This dual availability is not merely academic: there are situations – particularly where a judgment falls outside Cap. 645's scope or where its registration might be challenged – in which the common-law route remains strategically preferable.
Scope of Cap. 645: What Judgments Are Covered
The Ordinance applies to judgments given by Mainland courts in civil and commercial matters. Several categories are expressly excluded or treated with particular conditions, including judgments relating to certain family or succession matters, judgments concerning intellectual property where separate arrangements may apply, and judgments that conflict with Hong Kong public policy. Practitioners should assess each judgment individually against the Ordinance's scope provisions before committing to the registration route.
Key eligibility considerations include:
- Final and conclusive judgments: The judgment must be final and conclusive on the merits; interlocutory orders or provisional measures generally fall outside the registration mechanism.
- Money and non-money relief: Cap. 645 extends to certain non-monetary Mainland judgments, a material expansion from the predecessor regime, though the practical enforcement of non-money orders involves additional procedural steps before the Hong Kong courts.
- Subject-matter exclusions: Judgments in certain categories – such as those touching on status, revenue or criminal matters – remain outside the Ordinance's ambit.
- No exclusive jurisdiction agreement required (in most cases): The removal of this precondition is the single most significant liberalisation under Cap. 645, opening the regime to a far wider population of commercial creditors.
The Registration Procedure: Practical Steps
A judgment creditor seeking registration under Cap. 645 applies to the High Court of Hong Kong within the limitation period specified in the Ordinance. The application is made on an ex parte basis at the initial stage, supported by evidence of the Mainland judgment and accompanying materials. Upon registration, the court issues an order giving the Mainland judgment the force of a Hong Kong judgment.
The judgment debtor is then served and has an opportunity to apply to set aside registration. Grounds for setting aside mirror those recognised in reciprocal enforcement regimes internationally and include: lack of jurisdiction of the Mainland court under the criteria set out in Cap. 645; fraud in obtaining the judgment; breach of natural justice; and conflict with Hong Kong public policy. The public policy ground, while narrow in theory, has historically generated litigation in Hong Kong enforcement cases and should not be discounted.
Once registration is confirmed, the creditor gains access to the full spectrum of High Court enforcement mechanisms: charging orders over Hong Kong assets, garnishee proceedings against bank accounts, examination of the debtor as to their financial position, and – in appropriate cases – bankruptcy or winding-up proceedings. The ability to pursue asset freezing orders (Mareva injunctions) in support of enforcement remains available through the High Court, subject to the usual threshold of showing a real risk of asset dissipation.
If you are holding a Mainland judgment and assessing your enforcement options in Hong Kong, our team is available to advise on strategy and timing. Please contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com or visit our contacts page.
Open Questions and Interpretive Uncertainties
Despite the clarity that Cap. 645 brings to the headline framework, a number of interpretive questions remain unresolved as the regime moves through its early years of operation. Courts and practitioners are still working through the interaction between the Ordinance and specific fact patterns, and there is limited post-29 January 2024 case law to draw on at this stage.
Among the most practically significant open questions:
- Jurisdictional criteria: The Ordinance specifies connecting factors that will be treated as giving the Mainland court jurisdiction for recognition purposes. Where the debtor disputes whether those criteria were satisfied on the facts, contested set-aside hearings are likely.
- Late payment interest: Whether and at what rate interest accrued under a Mainland judgment will be recognised and enforced in Hong Kong – and whether the Hong Kong court will substitute its own interest calculation – remains to be clarified in practice.
- Interaction with arbitral awards: Parties who hold both an arbitral award and a Mainland court judgment confirming that award must consider which instrument to enforce in Hong Kong; the HKIAC arbitration framework provides its own recognition route under the New York Convention, which may be procedurally faster in some cases.
- Non-money judgments in practice: The theoretical coverage of non-money relief is welcome, but the practical mechanics of enforcing, for example, a Mainland specific performance order through Hong Kong proceedings remain to be tested.
Strategic Considerations for Creditors
Creditors approaching enforcement under Cap. 645 should conduct a structured analysis before selecting their route. The registration mechanism will be preferable in most cases involving a straightforward money judgment from a covered Mainland court, where the debtor has identifiable assets in Hong Kong and there is no compelling reason to anticipate a contested set-aside application. The procedural efficiency of registration is its principal advantage over the common-law debt action.
However, the common-law route retains distinct advantages in particular circumstances. Where the judgment's scope or the Mainland court's jurisdiction may be challenged, framing the claim as a fresh action on a debt shifts the battleground to Hong Kong procedural law, where the defences available to a debtor are more limited than the grounds for setting aside a registered judgment. Creditors with unpaid invoices arising from commercial contracts that predated the availability of Cap. 645, or whose Mainland proceedings were conducted in courts not yet generating post-2024 case law, may find the common-law route more predictable in the short term.
Asset identification is a critical preliminary step regardless of route. Before filing any enforcement application, a creditor should assess what Hong Kong-based assets the debtor holds. Relevant enquiries may include searches at the Companies Registry (for corporate debtors with Hong Kong entities), reviews of publicly available SFC records where the debtor or related parties hold licences, and consideration of whether a payment order or asset disclosure application can be sought in the High Court. Acting quickly matters: once a debtor becomes aware of enforcement proceedings, asset dissipation becomes a real risk, and an application for a freezing order may need to be made at an early stage.
For creditors facing a debtor showing signs of financial distress, the intersection of enforcement and insolvency is also relevant. A Mainland judgment confirmed in Hong Kong may support a statutory demand and ultimately a winding-up or bankruptcy petition if the debt is undisputed and the debtor fails to satisfy it. This area of law involves careful sequencing, and missteps – such as serving a statutory demand prematurely or on a debtor who has genuine grounds to dispute the underlying debt – can complicate the enforcement process. Our bankruptcy and restructuring practice in Hong Kong advises on precisely these questions.
Cross-Border Dimensions and Wider Implications
Cap. 645 operates within a broader landscape of cross-border dispute resolution between Mainland China and Hong Kong. It sits alongside separate arrangements covering arbitral awards, family maintenance orders, and insolvency cooperation. Understanding how these regimes interact – and which path offers the most efficient route to enforcement for a given creditor in a given situation – requires analysis of the specific judgment, the nature of the underlying dispute, and the debtor's asset profile across jurisdictions.
For international creditors whose exposure to Mainland China arises through Hong Kong-structured investments or supply chains, the REJ Ordinance is one element of a wider enforcement toolkit. Where a Mainland judgment has been obtained but assets are held in multiple jurisdictions, coordinating enforcement across those jurisdictions requires attention to local recognition rules, which vary significantly. Creditors operating within Europe who are familiar with the enforcement frameworks described in our cross-border debt recovery guide will find that the Hong Kong regime, while technically distinct, shares many of the same strategic principles: early identification of assets, prompt application for registration or equivalent relief, and anticipation of debtor defences.
The reciprocal dimension of Cap. 645 is also worth noting. The Ordinance forms part of a mutual arrangement: Hong Kong judgments may similarly be recognised and enforced in Mainland China under the corresponding Mainland rules. For Hong Kong-based businesses with counterparties on the Mainland, this creates an incentive to ensure that any judgment obtained in the Hong Kong High Court is properly structured to satisfy the recognition criteria on the Mainland side.
Outlook: The Regime in Practice
Cap. 645 has been in force since 29 January 2024, and the volume of registration applications and resulting case law is expected to grow steadily over the coming years. Early indications suggest that the regime is functioning broadly as intended for uncontested registrations of commercial money judgments. The more difficult questions – around contested jurisdictional challenges, the treatment of late payment interest, and the enforcement of non-money orders – are likely to be resolved through High Court decisions as cases work their way through the system.
Creditors who obtained Mainland judgments before 29 January 2024 should assess whether those judgments fall within Cap. 645's transitional provisions or whether the common-law route remains their only option. Those currently engaged in Mainland litigation should consider how their proceedings are structured to maximise the likelihood of a resulting judgment being registrable in Hong Kong should enforcement there become necessary.
For a detailed assessment of your specific enforcement position under the 2024 REJ regime, including the suitability of the registration route versus common-law action, our debt recovery team in Hong Kong can advise on the applicable procedure, timeline, and risk factors. Please reach out at info@ferrazwhitmore.com or through our contacts page to discuss your situation in confidence.
Disclaimer: This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. Ferraz & Whitmore assumes no liability for actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this material. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@ferrazwhitmore.com.