Enforcing Hong Kong and Macau Court Judgments in Mainland China

Introduction

A creditor who holds a Hong Kong or Macau judgment often assumes that enforcing it in mainland China means starting the case all over again. It does not. Mainland China has dedicated arrangements with both regions for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments, and these routes are far more predictable than the reciprocity test applied to foreign judgments from elsewhere. The two arrangements are different instruments with different scopes, so the first question in every case is which one applies.

Hong Kong: the 2019 Arrangement and the new regime

The current instrument is the Arrangement on Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters between the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, signed on 18 January 2019. It took effect in both jurisdictions on 29 January 2024, as a Supreme People's Court judicial interpretation numbered 法释〔2024〕2号, together with Hong Kong's implementing legislation, the Mainland Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap. 645). The 2019 Arrangement replaced the narrower 2008 Arrangement (法释〔2008〕9号), which had been limited to judgments under a written choice-of-court agreement.

The scope of the 2019 Arrangement is much wider. It covers effective judgments in civil and commercial matters — including rulings, mediation statements, payment orders and, in criminal cases, the civil-damages portion of a judgment. But the extension is not unlimited. Article 3 carves out eight categories, including certain matrimonial and family matters, inheritance, certain patent-infringement disputes, certain maritime matters, bankruptcy and insolvency, voter-qualification cases, arbitration-related matters, and cases recognising judgments of other jurisdictions. Several of these excluded categories are instead handled by their own instruments — matrimonial and family judgments, for example, continue under the separate 2017 Arrangement (preserved by Article 31 of the 2019 Arrangement).

What will and will not be enforced

Three provisions shape what a mainland court will actually recognise. Article 16 provides that a judgment is generally not recognised or enforced to the extent it awards punitive damages. Article 17 limits recognition of non-monetary judgments to specific situations, chiefly in intellectual-property and trade-secret matters; otherwise recognition is effectively confined to monetary relief. Article 15 deals with intellectual property separately: a validity ruling on an IP right will not be recognised, while a liability ruling can be. A foreign creditor should therefore map the relief it is seeking against these limits before choosing this route.

The grounds for refusing recognition are set out in Article 12 (six grounds that the respondent must prove, plus the public-policy reservation) and Article 13 (a discretionary ground where a valid arbitration agreement or jurisdiction agreement points elsewhere). The respondent carries the burden on the refusal grounds, which in practice keeps the process focused and reasonably quick.

Where to apply, what to file, and how long you have

Under Article 7, an applicant in the mainland may apply to the intermediate people's court at the place of the applicant's domicile, the respondent's domicile, or the respondent's property — a noticeably broad set of options compared with foreign-judgment recognition. The applicant may apply to only one court, and where several have jurisdiction the first to accept the case takes it. The documents required are listed in Article 8: the application, a sealed copy of the judgment, a certificate that the judgment has taken effect and is enforceable, proof of lawful service where the judgment was by default, and identity or registration documents, together with a Chinese translation. A party dissatisfied with the ruling may apply to the next-higher court for review within ten days under Article 26.

The time limit deserves careful attention because the Arrangement does not fix a single deadline. Article 10 leaves the application period to the law of the requested jurisdiction. On the Hong Kong side, an application for registration must generally be made within two years of the date the mainland judgment takes effect. On the mainland side, the applicable period is the two-year time limit for applying for execution under Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Law. A creditor should track both clocks from the date the judgment becomes effective.

Macau: the 2006 Arrangement, narrower but still useful

The mainland's route for Macau judgments is the older Arrangement on the Mutual Recognition and Enforcement of Civil and Commercial Judgments between the Mainland and the Macau Special Administrative Region, adopted in 2006 as 法释〔2006〕2号 and effective since 1 April 2006. It remains in force. Its scope is narrower than the Hong Kong regime: Article 3 centres on judgments with payment content, although a judgment without enforcement content can still be separately recognised or relied on as evidence. Jurisdiction under Article 4 lies with the intermediate people's court at the respondent's domicile, habitual residence or property. The refusal grounds are set out in Article 11, and the application period again follows the law of the requested jurisdiction.

How these routes differ from foreign-judgment recognition

It is important not to confuse the Hong Kong and Macau arrangements with the recognition of judgments from other countries. Foreign judgments are recognised in the mainland under Articles 298 to 303 of the Civil Procedure Law, on the basis of an international treaty or reciprocity — a gate that is discretionary and fact-sensitive. Hong Kong and Macau judgments are different: under the constitutional and Basic Law framework the mainland and the two regions exchange judgments through inter-regional arrangements that apply directly, with no reciprocity review. For a creditor, this is the practical advantage of the arrangements: the test is whether the judgment and the application meet the arrangement's own criteria, not whether the two legal systems happen to be in a mood to help each other.

Practical checklist

• Identify the correct instrument: the 2019 Hong Kong Arrangement (法释〔2024〕2号) or the 2006 Macau Arrangement (法释〔2006〕2号), and check the transitional and exclusion provisions first.
• Confirm the judgment is final and effective, and obtain the sealed copy and the effectiveness-and-enforceability certificate.
• Map the relief against Articles 16 and 17 — punitive damages and most non-monetary relief will not travel.
• File within the applicable period: two years on the Hong Kong side (Cap. 645) and the two-year execution period under Civil Procedure Law Article 250 on the mainland side.
• Choose the court carefully under Article 7 (Hong Kong) or Article 4 (Macau), and prepare a certified Chinese translation.