 [2025] HKCA 462, the Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court’s decision to set aside the registration of 4 Beijing Court rulings (“Rulings”) concerning the enforcement of notarised debt instruments under the Mainland Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap. 597) (“MJREO”).

The plaintiff (“Minseng”) lent sums totalling RMB 440 million to a borrower, with Fu Kwan (“Fu”) guaranteeing the loans under four agreements. These agreements included provisions for direct enforcement via notarisation under Article 238 of the PRC Civil Procedure Law, allowing Minsheng to seek enforcement without litigation. After the borrower defaulted, Minsheng obtained notarial and execution certificates from the Notary Public Office and applied for enforcement in the Beijing Court. The Beijing Court issued execution notices and froze assets of Fu, but enforcement was terminated on 1 December 2020 due to no recoverable assets of Fu in the Mainland, with the Ruling stating Fu’s ongoing obligation to pay.

Minsheng sought to register these rulings in Hong Kong under MJREO. The key issue was whether the Rulings satisfied section 5(2)(e), requiring a judgment to order payment of a sum of money. The Court of Appeal held that the Rulings did not meet this requirement. The Rulings merely terminated enforcement proceedings and described Fu’s existing obligations under the notarised debt instruments. The Court noted that Fu’s obligation to pay was determined by the Notary Public Office, not the Beijing Court, and thus the rulings were not “Mainland judgments” ordering payment under MJREO.

, and instructed by Anthony Siu & Co, appeared for the plaintiff (appellant). 

Members

Recruitment

Mentions

More on Recent Judgments

Can Rulings on Enforcement of Notarised Debt Instruments (公證債權文書) be Registered in Hong Kong Under the Mainland Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance?

About

Members

Recruitment

What's New