|
Arrangement on Reciprocal
Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
Commercial Matters by the Courts of the Mainland and of Hong
Kong
On 14th July 2006, the
Arrangement on Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of
Judgment in Civil and Commercial matters (“the Arrangement”)
was signed between Mainland China and Hong Kong. The
Arrangement has not yet taken effect. To give effect to the
Arrangement, a judicial interpretation is required to be
promulgated in Mainland China and implementing legislation is required to be
passed in Hong Kong; On the Hong
Kong side, a Mainland Judgment (Reciprocal Enforcement) Bill
(“the Bill”) was gazetted on 23rd February 2007
and the 1st reading of the Bill took place on 7th
March 2007. Since the implementation of the Arrangement
will have significant impact on cross-border and commercial
activities between Mainland China and Hong Kong, a Bills
Committee has been formed on 9th
March 2007 to study the Bill.
Application
Prior to the signing of the Arrangement,
there was no reciprocal enforcement of court judgments
between the courts of Mainland China and the courts of Hong
Kong. The Arrangement now provides a way to enforce
cross-border judgments but it applies only to judgments that
satisfy the following criteria:
-
Commercial contracts that result in a
judgment for payment of money;
-
Judgments of courts above the
Intermediate People’s Courts in Mainland and the courts
above the District Court in Hong Kong;
-
A valid clause in the commercial
contract stating which court that has exclusive
jurisdiction; and
-
Judgments that are final and
conclusive, which includes any judgment, ruling,
conciliation statement and order of payment in Mainland
China, and includes any judgment, order and allocatur in
the case of Hong Kong.
Grounds of refusal
The application for recognition and
enforcement of a judgment will be refused under the
following circumstances:
-
The choice of court agreement is
invalid under the place of the original trial, unless
the chosen court has determined that the choice of court
agreement is valid;
-
The judgment has been fully executed;
-
The court of the place where
enforcement is sought has exclusive jurisdiction over
the case according to its law;
-
The losing party was not summoned to
the original court or has not been given sufficient time
to defend his case;
-
The judgment has been obtained by
fraud; or
-
The court of the place where
enforcement is sought has made a prior judgment on the
same cause of action.
Further, an application for recognition and enforcement of a
judgment shall be refused by the court concerned if:
-
The People’s Court of Mainland China
considers that the enforcement of the Hong Kong judgment
is contrary to the social and public interest of
Mainland China; or
-
The Hong Kong Court considers that
the enforcement of Mainland China judgment is contrary
to the public policy of Hong Kong.
Practical consideration
In principle, the Arrangement should
facilitate a judgment creditor to enforce a money judgment
in a more expeditious manner. We shall now look into the
practical issues that may be encountered when one seeks
reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments between
Mainland China and Hong Kong.
Application
The
Arrangement has limited application. It is only applicable
for commercial contracts. Contracts relating to employment,
marriage, winding up, bankruptcy or consumer matters will
not be covered. Further, the court may not enforce
judgments for equitable reliefs such as orders for specific
performance or injunctions.
It is pertinent to have a valid exclusive jurisdiction
clause in the commercial contract concerned. If the subject
matter of the commercial contract is by law subject to the
exclusive jurisdiction of a specific court, then the
application for reciprocal enforcement may be refused if the
exclusive jurisdiction clause in the contract provides
otherwise and hence the clause being invalid. For example,
according to the laws of Hong Kong and Mainland China, the
court where the immovable property is situated assumes
exclusive jurisdiction. If a commercial contract regarding
Hong Kong real estate issues states that Mainland China
court has exclusive jurisdiction, the said clause is invalid
and unenforceable.
Grounds of refusal
Where a Mainland judgment is contrary to the “public policy
of Hong Kong” or a Hong Kong judgment that is contrary to
the “social and public interest of Mainland China”, the
judgment will not be reciprocally recognized and enforced.
Due to the different legal systems in Hong Kong and in
Mainland China, the respective courts do not necessarily
share the same view on the definition of “public policy” and
“social and public interest”. Under the common law system,
“public policy” is a legal concept which is construed
narrowly whilst Mainland China courts consider “social and
public interest” under the administrative and political
spectrum.
Procedure and time limitation
The application for reciprocal enforcement requires the
applicant to provide a copy of the judgment sealed by the
court which made the final judgment or a certificate issued
by the original court that verifies the finality of the
judgment. The applicant also needs to provide the proof of
identity (including individuals or legal corporation).
The Arrangement provides that an application for reciprocal
enforcement shall be governed by the jurisdiction where the
enforcement is sought. The time limit for application where
one or both parties are individuals is one year and if both
parties are legal persons, the limitation period is six
months.
Conclusion
While the Arrangement may provide a
mechanism to recognize and enforce money judgment
reciprocally between Mainland China and Hong Kong, its
application is limited and there are practical
difficulties on effective implementation of the
Arrangement. Having said that, both places are striving
their best efforts to instigate appropriate legislations and
promulgate relevant judicial interpretation to give full
effect to the Arrangement. The signing of the
Arrangement is a breakthrough for the judicial systems in
Mainland China and in Hong Kong. Whether the Arrangement
will become a useful and effective system for reciprocal
recognition and enforcement of judgments relies on the
continuing effort and development by the Mainland China and
Hong Kong.
Prepared in March 2007
The
above legal information is provided for general reference
only. Advice of qualified lawyers should be sought in respect of any particular
circumstances arising under the laws referred to in
this update.
|