Dispute Resolution in the Greater Bay Area: Cross-Border Collaboration Between Hong Kong and Mainland China
Frameworks, Exclusions, and Practical Realities in Cross-Border Disputes
Cross-border dispute resolution involving Hong Kong and Mainland China requires careful attention to the legal and procedural rules of both systems. Issues may arise in relation to arbitration, litigation, interim relief, enforcement, limitation periods, proof of foreign law, interest, guarantees, legal fees, service of judicial documents, and insolvency recognition. The essential point is that Hong Kong and Mainland China should not be treated as if their dispute-resolution regimes operate in the same way. The appropriate strategy depends on the forum, governing law, seat of arbitration, arbitral institution, location of assets, nature of the claim, and procedural stage.
1. Mainland–Hong Kong Judicial Assistance Framework
Mainland China and Hong Kong have a number of mutual legal assistance arrangements. The Hong Kong Department of Justice lists arrangements dealing with matters including service of judicial documents, enforcement of arbitral awards, recognition and enforcement of judgments, taking of evidence, matrimonial and family judgments, and interim measures in aid of arbitration.
In arbitration, the Arrangement Concerning Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards provides an enforcement channel between Hong Kong and the Mainland. The arrangement provides for the enforcement of Hong Kong awards in the Mainland where the award is made pursuant to the Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance, and for the enforcement of Mainland awards in Hong Kong where the award is made pursuant to the PRC Arbitration Law.
The 2019 Mainland–Hong Kong interim-measures arrangement applies to Hong Kong-seated arbitral proceedings administered by eligible arbitral institutions or permanent offices designated under Article 2(1) of that arrangement. The Department of Justice announced an updated list effective from 2 April 2025.
The nine designated institutions and permanent offices are: Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre; Hong Kong Maritime Arbitration Group; South China International Arbitration Center (HK); eBRAM International Online Dispute Resolution Centre; Shanghai International Arbitration (Hong Kong) Center; Asia Pacific International Arbitration Chamber Hong Kong Arbitration Center; AALCO Hong Kong Regional Arbitration Centre; China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission Hong Kong Arbitration Center; and the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce – Asia Office.
The designation is valid for two years from 2 April 2025, ending on 1 April 2027, subject to further application upon expiry. Accordingly, the interim-measures mechanism is not available for every Hong Kong-seated arbitration; it depends on whether the arbitration is administered by a designated eligible institution or permanent office.
2. Enforcement of Arbitral Awards and Civil or Commercial Judgments
The Mainland–Hong Kong arbitral award framework remains important for cross-border arbitration. The Arrangement Concerning Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards refers to the enforcement of awards made in Hong Kong pursuant to the Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance and awards made in the Mainland pursuant to the PRC Arbitration Law.
Civil and commercial judgment enforcement is now governed by a broader reciprocal framework. The Mainland Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance, Cap 645, came into operation on 29 January 2024. It implements the Arrangement on Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters by the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, signed on 18 January 2019.
The 2019 Arrangement applies to the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of legally effective judgments in civil and commercial matters between the Mainland and Hong Kong courts. It also applies to legally effective judgments relating to civil damages awarded in criminal cases.
The Arrangement is broad, but it is not unlimited. It expressly excludes specified categories, including bankruptcy or insolvency cases, certain family and succession matters, certain intellectual property matters, certain maritime matters, cases concerning the validity of arbitration agreements or the setting aside of arbitral awards, and cases concerning recognition and enforcement of judgments or arbitral awards of other countries or regions.
The Arrangement covers both monetary and non-monetary rulings, subject to the limits set out in the Arrangement. However, the definition of “judgment” excludes, in the case of the Mainland, rulings concerning preservation measures and, in the case of Hong Kong, anti-suit injunctions and orders for interim relief.
The Arrangement also contains refusal grounds. Recognition and enforcement may be refused where, for example, the jurisdictional requirements are not met, the respondent was not legally summoned or was not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard, the judgment was obtained by fraud, there are conflicting proceedings or judgments, or recognition and enforcement would be manifestly contrary to the relevant basic principles, social and public interests, or public policy of the requested place.
Article 24 separately provides that the requested court may, before or after accepting an application for recognition and enforcement, impose property preservation or mandatory measures in accordance with the law of the requested place.
Accordingly, as at 28 June 2026, it is not accurate to say that there is no broad Mainland–Hong Kong civil and commercial judgment enforcement mechanism. It is more accurate to say that a broad mechanism exists, but it remains subject to the scope, exclusions, procedural requirements, and grounds for refusal set out in the 2019 Arrangement and Cap 645.
3. Public Policy and Public Interest
Recognition or enforcement may still be affected by public policy, public interest, or equivalent objections where the applicable enforcement framework allows such objections. This article does not state how often such objections succeed, because that question depends on the particular facts, instrument, forum, and applicable law. The practical point is narrower: parties should not assume that satisfying formal enforcement requirements necessarily removes every possible objection.
4. Ascertainment of Foreign Law
In Hong Kong proceedings, foreign law is generally treated as a matter to be pleaded and proved. A Hong Kong legal scholarship summary describes Hong Kong as following the orthodox common-law approach to pleading and proving foreign law. In cross-border disputes, parties should consider at an early stage how the relevant non-forum law will be established. This may be important where Hong Kong law is relevant in Mainland proceedings or Mainland law is relevant in Hong Kong proceedings.
5. Legal Fees and Outcome-Based Arrangements
Hong Kong distinguishes between litigation and arbitration in relation to outcome-based fee arrangements. For arbitration, the Department of Justice states that outcome-related fee structure agreements may include conditional fee agreements, damages-based agreements, and hybrid damages-based agreements. It also states that these structures apply to arbitral proceedings and related court and mediation proceedings.
The Arbitration (Outcome Related Fee Structures for Arbitration) Rules, Cap 609D, came into operation on 16 December 2022. The rules include requirements such as a written agreement signed by the lawyer and the client. This does not mean that contingency fees should be assumed to be permissible in Hong Kong litigation. Litigation and arbitration must be considered separately.
6. Interest Rate Rules
Hong Kong’s money-lending thresholds are no longer the former 60% and 48% figures. The HKSAR Government stated that, from 30 December 2022, the statutory interest-rate cap under the Money Lenders Ordinance was amended from 60% to 48% per annum, and the extortionate-rate threshold was amended from 48% to 36% per annum.
For Mainland private lending, the relevant framework identified here is the four-times one-year Loan Prime Rate rule. A legal commentary source describes the Mainland private-lending framework as setting the upper limit of judicial protection for private-lending interest at four times the same-period one-year LPR at the time of contract formation. The China Foreign Exchange Trade System / National Interbank Funding Centre showed the one-year LPR as 3.00% on 22 June 2026. Four times 3.00% is 12.00%.
That figure should not be treated as a universal fixed cap for every loan. The applicable ceiling depends on the relevant LPR reference date and the nature of the lending relationship.
7. Limitation and Prescription
Hong Kong limitation periods are governed by the Limitation Ordinance, Cap 347. In most Hong Kong commercial disputes, ordinary contract claims are commonly described as subject to a six-year limitation period, while contracts executed as deeds may be subject to a 12-year period. For Mainland China, public commentary on PRC litigation states that the general limitation period for civil claims is three years and that special limitation periods may apply.
Limitation issues are technical and fact-dependent. Parties should verify the applicable period by reference to the claim type, governing law, forum, and relevant dates.
8. Guarantees and Suretyship
Guarantee periods require separate attention in Mainland-related lending or security arrangements. A legal commentary source discussing Article 692 of the PRC Civil Code states that the guarantee period is a fixed period and is not subject to suspension, interruption, or extension. It also states that if the parties have not agreed on the guarantee period, or if the agreement is unclear, the statutory guarantee period is six months.
The practical consequence is that a creditor should identify and monitor the guarantee period separately from the limitation period for the principal debt. In cross-border security structures involving an onshore Mainland guarantor and offshore indebtedness, separate foreign-exchange registration issues may arise. A law-firm commentary on Nei Bao Wai Dai states that non-bank institutions and individuals in China involved in such arrangements are required to complete statutory SAFE registration within the prescribed period, and that failure to do so may affect remittance even where a court judgment or arbitral award has been obtained. This issue should be checked separately in any transaction involving Mainland cross-border security.
9. Interim Measures in Aid of Hong Kong Arbitrations
The 2019 Mainland–Hong Kong interim-measures arrangement applies to Hong Kong-seated arbitrations administered by qualifying institutions or permanent offices. The Department of Justice announced an updated list of qualifying institutions and permanent offices effective from 2 April 2025. The announcement states that the designation is valid for two years, ending on 1 April 2027, subject to further application on expiry.
This article does not assert that Mainland courts have granted interim measures at the enforcement stage of Hong Kong awards. No independently verified public source for such specific cases is cited here.
10. Revised PRC Arbitration Law
The revised PRC Arbitration Law is now in force. Public sources state that it was adopted on 12 September 2025 and came into force on 1 March 2026. Public commentary identifies several reforms relevant to foreign-related arbitration, including recognition of the concept of the seat of arbitration, limited introduction of ad hoc arbitration in specified circumstances, recognition of online arbitration, and permission for foreign or offshore arbitral institutions to administer foreign-related cases in designated Mainland areas, including certain pilot free trade zones, the Hainan Free Trade Port, and other areas approved by the State Council.
Shanghai has also issued administrative measures concerning business offices established by overseas arbitration institutions within Shanghai. Those measures refer to the Lin-gang Special Area of the China (Shanghai) Pilot Free Trade Zone framework. This article does not state that the revised PRC Arbitration Law creates emergency arbitrator measures, because that specific mechanism is not verified here from an authoritative primary source.
11. April 2026 Arrangement on Service of Judicial Documents
A new Arrangement on Mutual Service of Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Proceedings between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region was signed in Beijing on 20 April 2026. It applies where judicial documents in civil and commercial proceedings before Mainland courts must be served on a person in Hong Kong, or where judicial documents in civil and commercial proceedings before Hong Kong courts must be served on a person in the Mainland.
The new arrangement broadens the possible modes of service. Article 3 provides that service may be effected by mutual entrustment by the courts and by other agreed modes, including postal service, electronic service, and service by authorised persons. If service cannot be effected by those modes, service by public announcement is permissible.
For mutual court entrustment, Article 4 provides that the High People’s Courts of the Mainland and the High Court of Hong Kong may entrust service to each other. The Supreme People’s Court may directly entrust service to the High Court of Hong Kong, and may authorise mutual entrustment between some Intermediate People’s Courts or Primary People’s Courts and the High Court of Hong Kong after consultation with the Hong Kong Judiciary.
Article 5 provides that, for mutual entrustment by courts, judicial documents may be transmitted electronically, or by post if electronic transmission is not possible. Electronically transmitted judicial documents have the same effect as originals.
Article 19 states that, following promulgation of a judicial interpretation by the Supreme People’s Court and completion of relevant internal procedures in Hong Kong, both sides will announce the commencement date. From that commencement date, the earlier Arrangement for Mutual Service of Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Proceedings between the Mainland and Hong Kong Courts will be terminated. Accordingly, as at 28 June 2026, the April 2026 arrangement had been signed, but should be treated as pending commencement unless and until the commencement date has been announced.
12. Cross-Border Insolvency Recognition and Assistance
Mainland–Hong Kong judicial cooperation also extends to certain insolvency matters. The Supreme People’s Court’s Opinion on Taking Forward a Pilot Measure in relation to the Recognition of and Assistance to Insolvency Proceedings in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region designates the people’s courts in Shanghai Municipality, Xiamen Municipality in Fujian Province, and Shenzhen Municipality in Guangdong Province to conduct pilot work on recognition of and assistance to Hong Kong insolvency proceedings.
For the purposes of the SPC Opinion, “Hong Kong Insolvency Proceedings” include collective insolvency proceedings commenced under Hong Kong’s Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance and Companies Ordinance, including compulsory winding up, creditors’ voluntary winding up, and schemes of arrangement promoted by a liquidator or provisional liquidator and sanctioned by the Hong Kong court under section 673 of the Companies Ordinance.
The SPC Opinion applies where Hong Kong is the debtor’s centre of main interests. It states that the centre of main interests generally means the debtor’s place of incorporation, while the people’s court should also consider factors including the debtor’s principal office, principal place of business, and principal assets. It further states that, when the Hong Kong administrator applies for recognition and assistance, the debtor’s centre of main interests must have been in Hong Kong continuously for at least six months.
A Hong Kong administrator may apply for recognition and assistance where the debtor’s principal assets in the Mainland are in a pilot area, or where the debtor has a place of business or representative office in a pilot area. The SPC Opinion provides that the relevant Intermediate People’s Courts in the pilot areas have jurisdiction over such cross-boundary insolvency assistance cases.
The SPC Opinion also provides for consequences after recognition. Payment of debts by the debtor to individual creditors is invalid; ongoing civil actions or arbitrations involving the debtor are suspended until the Hong Kong administrator takes over the debtor’s property; preservation measures over the debtor’s property are lifted; and execution procedures are suspended.
The SPC Opinion further provides that, after recognition, a Mainland court may allow the Hong Kong administrator to perform specified duties in the Mainland, including taking over the debtor’s property and records, investigating the debtor’s financial position, managing and disposing of the debtor’s property, participating in legal proceedings on behalf of the debtor, and accepting and examining declarations of claims by Mainland creditors. Certain acts, including transferring property out of the Mainland, require separate approval by the people’s court.
The SPC Opinion also sets out grounds on which recognition or assistance must be refused, including where the debtor’s centre of main interests is not in Hong Kong or has been in Hong Kong for less than six months, where Article 2 of the PRC Enterprise Bankruptcy Law is not satisfied, where Mainland creditors are unfairly treated, where fraud exists, or where recognition or assistance would violate the basic principles of Mainland law or offend public order or good morals.
The Hong Kong side also provides a procedure for Mainland bankruptcy administrators applying to the Hong Kong Court of First Instance for recognition and assistance. The Hong Kong practical guide states that the Mainland administrator should first obtain a letter of request from the Mainland court that appointed the administrator, addressed to the Court of First Instance, and that the letter should set out the terms of the order sought from the Hong Kong court.
After obtaining the letter of request, the Mainland administrator may apply to the Court of First Instance by originating summons, supported by affidavit or affirmation evidence, on an ex parte basis, for a standard-form order. The guide also states that the Court of First Instance may deal with the application on paper, although it may direct a hearing if appropriate.
The practical guide includes sample documents for reference, including a letter of request from a Mainland court, an ex parte originating summons, supporting affidavit or affirmation evidence, and a standard-form recognition order. This insolvency recognition framework is relevant where Hong Kong insolvency proceedings require assistance in designated Mainland pilot areas, and where Mainland bankruptcy administrators seek recognition and assistance from the Hong Kong Court of First Instance. It should be treated separately from the 2019 civil and commercial judgments enforcement arrangement, which excludes bankruptcy and insolvency cases.
13. Practical Conclusion
Cross-border dispute resolution between Hong Kong and Mainland China requires precise attention to the applicable legal regime. Arbitration, judgment enforcement, interim measures, service of documents, legal fees, interest, limitation, guarantees, insolvency recognition, and proof of foreign law may each be governed by different rules depending on the forum, governing law, seat of arbitration, institution, asset location, and procedural stage. The safest approach is to avoid assuming that Hong Kong and Mainland rules are interchangeable. Each issue should be checked against the relevant instrument, statute, court rules, and current legal position.
Bibliography:
The following sources were consulted in preparing this article. It is written in original wording. Official titles of statutes, legal instruments, institutions, and legislation are used for accuracy.
1. Hong Kong Department of Justice, “Arrangements with the Mainland”.Direct link: https://www.doj.gov.hk/en/mainland_and_macao/arrangements_with_the_mainland.html
2. Hong Kong Department of Justice, “Arrangement Concerning Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region”, signed 21 June 1999, entered into force 1 February 2000.
Direct link: https://www.doj.gov.hk/en/legal_dispute/pdf/mainlandmutual2e.pdf
3. Hong Kong Department of Justice, “Arrangement Concerning Mutual Assistance in Court-ordered Interim Measures in Aid of Arbitral Proceedings by the Courts of the Mainland and of the HKSAR – New Application Exercise to Qualify under Article 2(1)”.
Direct link: https://www.doj.gov.hk/en/community_engagement/announcements/20241218_an1.html
4. Arrangement on Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters by the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, signed 18 January 2019; Mainland Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance, Cap 645, in operation from 29 January 2024; Hong Kong Department of Justice, “CAP645 — The Ordinance and the Arrangement”
Arrangement direct link: https://www.doj.gov.hk/en/mainland_and_macao/pdf/Doc3_477379e.pdf
Cap 645 direct link: https://www.doj.gov.hk/cap645/en/ordinance_and_arrangement/index.html
5. Wilson Lui, “Wilson Lui on Treatment of Foreign Law in Hong Kong” (HKU Legal Scholarship Blog, 9 January 2024).
Direct link: http://researchblog.law.hku.hk/2024/01/wilson-lui-on-treatment-of-foreign-law.html
6. Hong Kong Department of Justice, “Top 20 FAQs on Outcome-Related Fee Structures for Arbitration”.
Direct link: https://www.doj.gov.hk/en/legal_dispute/pdf/top_20_faqs_on_outcome_related_fee_structures_for_arbitration.pdf
7. Hong Kong e-Legislation, “Arbitration (Outcome Related Fee Structures for Arbitration) Rules, Cap 609D”.
Direct link: https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/cap609D
8. HKSAR Government, “Amendments to Statutory Interest Rate Cap Take Effect From Tomorrow” (Press Release, 29 December 2022).
Direct link: https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202212/29/P2022122800417.htm
9. Law in a Minute, “How Much Can Interest Rates Be?”.
Direct link: https://lawinamin.com/articles/how-much-can-interest-rates-be/
10. China Foreign Exchange Trade System / National Interbank Funding Center, “Loan Prime Rate”, 22 June 2026.
Direct link: https://www.chinamoney.com.cn/english/bmklpr/
11. Hong Kong e-Legislation, “Limitation Ordinance, Cap 347”.
Direct link: https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/cap347
12. DLA Piper Intelligence, “Global Litigation Guide: Hong Kong, SAR — Limitation”.
Direct link: https://www.dlapiperintelligence.com/litigation/insight/index.html?t=02-limitation&c=HK
13. DLA Piper Intelligence, “Global Litigation Guide: China — Limitation”.
Direct link: https://www.dlapiperintelligence.com/litigation/insight/index.html?t=02-limitation&c=CN
14. Gaopeng & Partners, “The Connection and Differentiation of Warranty Period, Warranty Debt Litigation Limitation, and Principal Debt Litigation Limitation” (Firm Insights, 2021).
Direct link: https://www.gaopenglaw.com/en/content/details11_2264.html
15. Hong Kong Government, “Institutions and permanent offices qualified for interim measure applications announced” (Press Release, 2 April 2025).
Direct link: https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202504/02/P2025040200700.htm
16. Weina Ye, Kathryn Ye, “New PRC Arbitration Law: The Key Developments for Foreign-Related Arbitration” (Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, 25 March 2026).
Direct link: https://www.hsfkramer.com/insights/reports/2026/inside-arbitration-issue-21/new-prc-arbitration-law-the-key-developments-for-foreign-related-arbitration
17. Hill Dickinson, “PRC’s New Arbitration Law: Impact and Guidance for Hong Kong Arbitrations” (Legal Update, 14 April 2026).
Direct link: https://www.hilldickinson.com/our-view/articles/prc-s-new-arbitration-law-impact-and-guidance-for-hong-kong-arbitrations/
18. Bird & Bird, “Landmark Reform of the Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China” (Client Alert, 21 October 2025).
Direct link: https://www.twobirds.com/en/insights/2025/china/landmark-reform-of-the-arbitration-law-of-the-people’s-republic-of-china
19. Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer, “Updated PRC Arbitration Law Comes into Effect” (Legal Update, March 2026)
Direct link: https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/arbitration/2026-02/updated-prc-arbitration-law-comes-into-effect
20. Arrangement on Mutual Service of Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Proceedings between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, courtesy English translation, signed in Beijing on 20 April 2026; Hong Kong Department of Justice / HKSAR Government, “HKSAR and Mainland sign new arrangement on mutual service of judicial documents in civil and commercial proceedings” (Press Release, 21 April 2026).
Arrangement direct link: https://www.doj.gov.hk/en/mainland_and_macao/pdf/service_arrangement_en.pdf
Press release direct link: https://www.doj.gov.hk/en/community_engagement/press/20260421_pr1.html
21. AllBright Law Offices, “Registration of Onshore Guarantees for Offshore Indebtedness” (Professional Articles, 27 February 2017).
Direct link: https://www.allbrightlaw.com/EN/10475/43f7f7e930acd550.aspx
22. Supreme People’s Court, Opinion on Taking Forward a Pilot Measure in relation to the Recognition of and Assistance to Insolvency Proceedings in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, courtesy English translation.
Direct link: https://www.doj.gov.hk/en/mainland_and_macao/pdf/RRECCJ_opinion_en_tc.pdf
23. Hong Kong Department of Justice, Procedures for a Mainland Administrator’s Application to the Hong Kong SAR Court for Recognition and Assistance: Practical Guide.
Direct link: https://www.doj.gov.hk/en/mainland_and_macao/pdf/RRECCJ_practical_guide_en.pdf
24. Shanghai Municipal Bureau of Justice, Administrative Measures for the Business Offices in Shanghai Established by Overseas Arbitration Institutions, 23 September 2025.
Direct link: https://english.shanghai.gov.cn/en-Bulletin/20250923/95f464747b8b441c823bf024c2b9cab9.html
Disclaimer
This article is provided for general informational purposes only. It is not legal advice and should not be construed as legal advice. Readers should not rely on the contents of this article as a substitute for advice from qualified legal professionals. While efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of the information as of 28 June 2026, the legal position may change, and the application of any statute, arrangement, rule, procedure, case law, or regulatory requirement depends on the specific facts, governing law, forum, procedural stage, contractual documents, asset location, regulatory approvals, and available evidence. Readers should conduct their own research and seek proper legal advice before taking, or refraining from taking, any action based on this article.