A Study On The Conditions For Hong Kong Courts To Recognize And Enforce Mainland Civil And Commercial Judgments

When the new arrangement of China's mainland and Hong Kong on reciprocal recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial judgements comes into force,the majority of civil and commercial judgements between two places are expected to be enforced.In order to reduce the risk of future Mainland civil and commercial judgments being rejected in Hong Kong's recognition and enforcement,this article explores the conditions for Hong Kong courts to recognize and enforce Mainland civil and commercial judgments under the common law and statutory law.The full text is divided into three parts:Chapter 1 briefly introduces the two legal paths for Hong Kong to recognize and enforce Mainland civil and commercial judgments—common law path and statutory law path and the difference between the two;Chapter 2 summarizes Hong Kong's precedents and concludes the seven conditions for Hong Kong to recognize and enforce Mainland civil and commercial judgments under the common law path and give specific explanations respectively;Chapter 3 analyzes the arrangements between the two places and the Hong Kong regulations,clarifies the seven conditions for Hong Kong to recognize and enforce mainland civil and commercial judgments under the statutory path,and discusses the specific application of the above conditions by the Hong Kong courts in judicial practice.This article finds out that there is no substantial difference between the conditions required by the Hong Kong courts under the two paths,but more procedural differences,such as the simplification of registration procedure and changes in the distribution of burden of proof.Regarding the fraud defense that might be adopted under both routes,Hong Kong adopts a stricter attitude to restrict its application because it can break through the non-substantive review standard for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.Among the many conditions,the finality problem is no longer an obstacle to the circulation of judgments between the two places,but the inconsistency in the rules of service and jurisdiction between the two places may cause practical problems in the future.