In the recent judgment of 中国民生信托有限公司 v 傅军 (FU KWAN) [2025] HKCA 462, 21 May 2025, the Hong Kong Court of Appeal held that certain enforcement rulings issued by the Mainland courts do not constitute a judgment for "payment of money" and do not fall within the scope of the Mainland Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap. 597) (MJREO), and therefore cannot be registered or enforced in Hong Kong under that regime.

The case involved appeals by China Minsheng Trust Co., Ltd (Minsheng) against a decision by the Court of First Instance, which had set aside the registration in Hong Kong of four enforcement rulings (裁定书) issued by the Beijing No. 3 Intermediate People's Court (the Rulings). These Rulings related to a notarised debt instrument involving Minsheng, a borrower and a guarantor. According to the Hong Kong courts, the Rulings do not constitute a money judgment and are therefore not "Mainland judgments" under MJREO.

Under MJREO, "Mainland judgment" means "a judgment, ruling, conciliatory statement or order of payment in civil or commercial matters that is given by a designated court".

Minsheng sought to register the Rulings in Hong Kong under section 5 of MJREO, which sets out five key requirements for a Mainland judgment to be enforceable in Hong Kong:

• the judgment must be given by a chosen court stipulated in a choice of Mainland court agreement;
• the judgment must have been made between 1 August 2008 and 29 January 2024;
• the judgment must be final and conclusive;
• the judgment must be enforceable in the Mainland; and
• the judgment must order the payment of a sum of money.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, focusing on the fifth requirement. It found that the Rulings did not constitute judgments ordering the payment of money. Instead, they merely recorded the termination of enforcement proceedings and acknowledged the debtor's continuing obligations. Crucially, the sums payable were determined by the Beijing Notary Office, not by the Mainland court itself. As such, the Rulings did not create a judgment debt enforceable under MJREO.

This distinction is particularly important due to the procedural differences in enforcement proceedings between the Mainland and Hong Kong. In the Mainland, courts are responsible for enforcing judgments upon application by judgment creditors and may even enforce judgments against entities that were not parties to the original action. On the other hand, enforcement in Hong Kong is conducted through applications for various types of court order depending on the type of assets being enforced.

The Hong Kong Court's decision provides much-needed clarity on the scope of MJREO. For legal practitioners, this case serves as a valuable precedent and a reminder to carefully assess the nature of Mainland rulings before seeking their registration and enforcement in Hong Kong.

Acknowledgements to Trainee Solicitor Elaine Ng for research and contribution to this article.