Enforcing PRC judgments in Hong Kong – how do Hong Kong courts deal with an exclusive jurisdiction clause?

Enforcing PRC judgments in Hong Kong – how do Hong Kong courts deal with an exclusive jurisdiction clause?

Enforcing PRC judgments in Hong Kong – how do Hong Kong courts deal with an exclusive jurisdiction clause? 1400 788 Hugo

The Mainland Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance, Cap. 597 (the “Ordinance”) provides a mechanism through which Mainland Court a judgment is enforced in Hong Kong, subject to other statutory requirements set out in section 5 of the Ordinance.

One of the statutory requirements for the Ordinance to apply is that the agreement under dispute that resulted in the Mainland judgment needs to specify that the Mainland court has exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute. Without such agreement, the parties may challenge the enforceability of the Mainland judgment.

The question of whether there is an exclusive jurisdiction clause in an agreement under dispute is essential for enforcing a PRC judgment. The exclusivity of a jurisdiction clause is a question of law to be ruled upon by the court.

In reality, as reflected from The Expert-Import Bank of China v Taifeng Textile Group Co. Ltd and Another [2018] HKCFI 1840 and Bank of China Limited v Yang Fan [2016] 3 HKLRD 7, Hong Kong courts will start from the ordinary meaning of the words of the jurisdiction clause and then consider other factors including (1) the identity of parties in the disputes, (2) the parties’ place of residence or incorporation, (3) the parties’ place of business, and (4) the place of execution, performance and breach of that agreement.

While in the above said two cases the Hong Kong court ruled that there was an exclusive jurisdiction clause, a point to note is that the Hong Kong court would also take into account expert evidence in relation to the interpretation of clauses. In the Taifeng Textile Group case, the court was asked to construe the meaning of the word “可以” (in English “may”), and in the Yang Fan case, the essential word was “應” (“should”, in English). These two cases highlight the importance of using an appropriate word when drafting the exclusive jurisdiction clause in a contract.

If you have any concerns in relation to the exclusive jurisdiction clause in your contract, please contact us today for a discussion.

Back to top
Privacy Preferences

When you visit our website, it may store information through your browser from specific services, usually in the form of cookies. Here you can change your Privacy preferences. It is worth noting that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our website and the services we are able to offer.

Click to enable/disable Google Analytics tracking code.
Click to enable/disable Google Fonts.
Click to enable/disable Google Maps.
Click to enable/disable video embeds.
Our website uses cookies, mainly from 3rd party services. Define your Privacy Preferences and/or agree to our use of cookies.