On 20 April 2026, the HKSAR Government and the Supreme People’s Court signed a new arrangement for the mutual service of judicial documents in civil and commercial proceedings (“New Arrangement”). For Hong Kong litigators, this is a long-overdue upgrade to a framework that has, for years, been one of the most frustrating procedural bottlenecks in cross-border litigation. This article examines the implications of the New Arrangement for the service of judicial documents on defendants present in the Chinese Mainland.
Under the Arrangement for Mutual Service of Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Proceedings between the Mainland and Hong Kong Courts (“Current Arrangement”), effecting service on a Mainland defendant has been a notoriously difficult exercise. Court-to-court entrustment — channelled between the High Court of the HKSAR and the relevant Higher People’s Court — was the only available method, and in practice the entrusted Mainland court would typically attempt personal service on the defendant. That often proved impracticable not least because individual defendants are frequently not found at the relevant address when service is attempted, and the process typically took four to six months with a low rate of success. The result was significant additional cost and uncertainty, with proceedings frequently stuck at the service stage. In many cases, parties were compelled to seek advice from PRC lawyers on alternative means of progressing service, adding further time and expense. Where entrustment failed, the plaintiff’s only recourse was to apply for substituted service — a route requiring proof that the prescribed method was impracticable, and one which the Court Registry has in practice been reluctant to grant, particularly where the proposed alternative (such as public announcement) was not sanctioned under the Current Arrangement.
The New Arrangement changes this. It replaces the previous single court-dependent regime with multiple avenues for service on defendants (whether corporate or individual) present in the Chinese Mainland — avenues that are potentially faster, cheaper and harder to evade.
- First, even within the court-to-court entrustment channel, the entrusted Mainland court is no longer confined to personal service. Under Article 8, the court may now effect service by direct service, postal service, electronic service or by leaving documents at the addressee’s place — significantly reducing the scope for defendants to evade service. The entrusted court may also effect service by way of public announcement pursuant to Article 17, a method unavailable under the Current Arrangement. As before, a two-month time limit is imposed on the entrusted court to complete service (Article 7), with proof of service to be returned within fourteen (14) working days (Article 10).
- Second, and more significantly, Article 15 permits Hong Kong parties directly to instruct Mainland law firms or notarisation institutions to effect service on their behalf. This is designed to bypasses the court entrustment channel altogether, allowing parties to take a proactive role in progressing service — particularly where the defendant’s address is known and the bottleneck has been the court entrustment process itself.
- Third, and likely the most practically significant new route, the New Arrangement introduces electronic service as a standalone avenue for service on a Mainland defendant. Under Article 14, Hong Kong parties may serve documents by electronic means — including by fax, email or instant messaging platforms — provided that the counterparty has expressly consented, has voluntarily provided an electronic address for service in its pleadings, or has confirmed acceptance of electronic transmission by way of reply or participation in the proceedings.
- Fourth, Article 16 introduces a deemed service mechanism targeting the practical difficulty of serving individual defendants who may not be present at the address known to the plaintiff. Where no documentary proof of whether service has been effected is received (雖未收到送達與否的證明文件), service may nonetheless be deemed effected if the recipient has referred to the contents of the served documents, has acted in accordance with them, or where there are other circumstances confirming that service has been effected (「其他可以確認已經送達的情形」).
The New Arrangement represents a meaningful modernisation of the mutual service regime, replacing a court-dependent model with multiple avenues suited to efficient cross-border litigation. It is, however, not yet in force. Under Article 19, commencement requires the Supreme People’s Court to issue a judicial interpretation and for Hong Kong to complete its internal procedures, after which both sides will announce the effective date (at which point the Current Arrangement will be annulled). Until then, practitioners must continue to operate under the Current Arrangement. That said, businesses and their advisers should not wait. Now is the time to review service provisions in commercial contracts involving a Mainland or Hong Kong counterparty — particularly given that electronic service under the New Arrangement requires the counterparty’s express consent. Parties whose contracts do not address this may risk being unable to take advantage of the most efficient new route when the regime comes into effect.
This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Specific legal advice should be sought in relation to individual circumstances.
For further information, please contact:
Danny Leung, Partner, Bird & Bird
danny.leung@twobirds.com
