A recent judgment in the High Court of Hong Kong, 華融華僑資產管理股份有限公司 v 李晓鹏 (China Huarong Asset Management Co, Ltd v Li Xiao Peng) [2025] HKCFI 6402, clarifies the interplay between the statutory registration regime under the Mainland Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap. 597) (MJREO) and common law enforcement.
Background
The Plaintiff was the assignee of a debt in the PRC which the Defendant had guaranteed. Following default, the parties entered into a Civil Mediation Certificate issued by a Mainland Intermediate People’s Court in October 2019. A Civil Mediation Certificate constitutes a registrable judgment under the MJREO. However, the Plaintiff did not apply to register the Civil Mediation Certificate in Hong Kong within the two year statutory time limit under MJREO. Instead, after 4.5 years, the Plaintiff commenced common law enforcement proceedings in Hong Kong and applied for summary judgment to enforce the Civil Mediation Certificate, a Mareva injunction and asset disclosure orders.
The central issue was whether section 22(2) of MJREO precludes common law actions if a judgment satisfies the requirements for statutory registration.
Decision of the court
The court affirmed that if a Mainland judgment meets the criteria set out in section 5(2)(a)-(e) of MJREO, it must be enforced via the statutory registration route.
Section 22(2) of MJREO explicitly states that no proceedings for the recovery of a sum payable under such a judgment shall be entertained other than by way of registration. The court held that the MJREO was designed to provide a “codified route” for enforcement to ensure reciprocity and certainty.
Under the MJREO, a judgment creditor generally has two years to apply for registration. In this case, the Plaintiff was out of time for statutory registration and attempted to use the common law route, which typically carries a six-year limitation period under the Limitation Ordinance. The court ruled that the two-year limit is deliberate and policy-driven. Missing this window does not grant a “second chance” to sue under common law if the judgment was originally registrable under the Ordinance.
Further, the court discharged the Plaintiff’s Mareva injunction due to serious material non disclosures. The Plaintiff failed to alert the judge at the ex parte stage to the potential section 22(2) MJREO defence, which could have barred the enforcement claim entirely. The court also criticised inaccuracies in the Plaintiff’s evidence regarding the Defendant’s shareholdings and an alleged oral undertaking not to dissipate assets, as well as the failure to disclose a pending Mainland land auction which could have significantly reduced the quantum of assets required to be frozen in Hong Kong.
Key takeaway
The court’s decision emphasises that the MJREO is not merely an alternative to common law, but an exclusive code for enforcement of judgments falling within its scope. Practitioners must be vigilant in adhering to the two-year registration deadline to avoid losing their right to enforce Mainland debts in Hong Kong.
Acknowledgements to Trainee Solicitor Elaine Ng for research and contribution to this article.
For further information, please contact:
Richard Keady, Partner, Dentons
richard.keady@dentons.com
