In Huzhou Shenghua Financial Services Co Ltd v. Hang Pin Living Technology Co Ltd [2025] 3 HKLRD 447, the Court of Appeal clarified the requirement of “final and conclusive” under section 5(2)(c) of the Mainland Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap. 597) (MJREO). When a Mainland judgment is appealed and the appeal is dismissed, one should register the appellate judgment, not the first instance decision, says the court.

Background

Under section 5 of the MJREO, a Mainland judgment may be registered in Hong Kong for enforcement, provided that certain statutory conditions are satisfied. One of the requirements is that the judgment sought to be registered must be “final and conclusive as between the parties to the judgment”.

In Huzhou Shenghua, the Mainland judgment sought to be registered was issued by the Intermediate People’s Court of Huzhou City, Zhejiang Province in favour of the Plaintiff (First Instance Decision). The defendant appealed against this decision. On 24 August 2020, the Higher People’s Court of Zhejiang Province dismissed the defendant’s appeal and upheld the lower court’s ruling (Appellate Judgment). The defendant subsequently applied to the Supreme People’s Court for a retrial. However, by an order dated 3 February 2021, the Supreme People’s Court rejected the application (Order Dismissing Retrial).

The central issue in this case was whether the First Instance Decision or the Appellate Judgment should be registered under the MJREO.

The decision of the court

The Court of Appeal held that the Appellate Judgment is the judgment that is final and conclusive for the purposes of registration under the MJREO. While the plaintiff may, in practice, wish to append the First Instance Decision – which contains the operative order of the Mainland court – to the registration, it is the Appellate Judgment that satisfies the statutory criteria for registration.

In reaching its decision, the court examined section 6 of the MJREO, which sets out an exhaustive list of four categories of Mainland judgments that are considered “final and conclusive”:

1. judgments given by the Supreme People’s Court;
2. first instance decision where no appeal is allowed under Mainland law, or where the time limit for appeal has expired and no appeal has been filed;
3. second instance decision given by a designated court other than a Primary People’s Court; and
4. judgment given in a retrial by a court of a level higher than the originating court.

The court found that the First Instance Decision did not fall within any of these categories. In particular, it clarifies that category (ii) does not encompass situations where an appeal has been lodged and subsequently dismissed.¹ The phrase “no appeal is allowed” refers to the absence of a right to appeal, not to the outcome of an appeal. By contrast, the Appellate Judgment falls squarely within category (iii),² as it is a second instance decision issued by a designated court. Under the Mainland’s two-tier system of final adjudication, such appellate decisions are generally regarded as final and enforceable. 

The court also addressed the concern that the Appellate Judgment, having merely dismissed the appeal and affirmed the First Instance Decision – which contains the monetary order – might not satisfy the MJREO requirement that the judgment must be for the payment of a sum of money. The court held that, for the purposes of the MJREO, the Appellate Judgment can be treated as effectively remaking the First Instance Decision, thereby fulfilling the requirement that the judgment sought to be registered must be for the payment of a sum of money.

Although the registrability of the Order Dismissing Retrial was not directly in issue, the court’s reasoning implies that such an order is not registrable under the MJREO. The court noted that even if a retrial application is pending, the Appellate Judgment remains final and conclusive, and is therefore registrable. This interpretation is supported by the legislative history of the MJREO, which confirms that section 6 was enacted to ensure finality despite the existence of the special retrial mechanism in the Mainland legal system.

The court further reinforced this conclusion by observing that a registration is not liable to be set aside under section 19 of the MJREO merely because there is a pending application for retrial before the Mainland Procuratorate. Only an actual order for retrial would affect the finality of the judgment.

Key takeaway

The judgment provides much-needed clarity on the appropriate judgment to register in an MJREO application. It resolves prior uncertainty by confirming that where a judgment has been appealed and the appeal dismissed, it is the appellate judgment – not the lower court decision – that should be registered. This guidance offers practical certainty for legal practitioners handling MJREO applications and has been positively received by the profession. The decision reinforces procedural consistency and ensures that the registered judgment reflects the final and binding outcome of the dispute.

Acknowledgements to Trainee Solicitor Alexa Loong for research and contribution to this article.

1. [73]
2. [76]