Hong Kong & Macao Legal Perspective | Introduction to Hong Kong's Legal System (Part 4) – Mutual Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments Between Hong Kong and Mainland China: Judicial Cooperation Across Jurisdictions

1. The Importance of Mutual Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments

2. The Development Process of Mutual Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments Between the Two Regions

(1) Early Exploration Stage

In the early period after Hong Kong's return, there was no systematic mechanism for mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments between the mainland and Hong Kong. If parties wanted to enforce a judgment in the other region, they often had to initiate a new lawsuit, increasing time and financial costs and wasting judicial resources. To address this, the two regions began preliminary exploration. In 1999, the Supreme People's Court and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government reached the "Arrangement on Mutual Commissioned Service of Civil and Commercial Judicial Documents between Mainland and Hong Kong Courts," marking the beginning of judicial cooperation. Subsequently, cooperation was established in areas such as enforcement of arbitration awards, but progress in mutual recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial judgments was relatively slow.

(2) Agreement Jurisdiction Judgment Mutual Recognition Stage

在香港回归初期，内地与香港之间缺乏系统的判决互认与执行机制。当事人若想在对方地区执行判决，往往需要重新提起诉讼，这无疑增加了当事人的时间和经济成本，也造成了司法资源的浪费。为了解决这一问题，两地开始了初步探索。1999年，最高人民法院与香港特别行政区政府达成了《关于内地与香港特别行政区法院相互委托送达民商事司法文书的安排》，开启了两地司法协助的先河。此后，又陆续在仲裁裁决执行等方面达成合作，但在民商事判决互认与执行方面进展相对缓慢。

In the early stages of Hong Kong's return, there was a lack of a systematic mechanism for mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments between the mainland and Hong Kong. If the parties want to enforce the judgment in the other party's region, they often need to file a new lawsuit, which undoubtedly increases their time and economic costs, and also causes a waste of judicial resources. In order to solve this problem, the two places have started preliminary exploration. In 1999, the Supreme People's Court and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government reached an agreement on the "Arrangement for Mutual Commissioned Service of Civil and Commercial Judicial Documents by Mainland and Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Courts", marking the beginning of judicial assistance between the two regions. Since then, cooperation has been reached in areas such as arbitration award enforcement, but progress in mutual recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial judgments has been relatively slow.

2008年7月，最高人民法院公布了《关于内地与香港特别行政区法院相互认可和执行当事人协议管辖的民商事案件判决安排》。该安排规定，内地人民法院和香港特别行政区法院在具有书面管辖协议的民商事案件中作出的须支付款项的具有执行力的终审判决，当事人可以根据本安排向内地人民法院或者香港特别行政区法院申请认可和执行。这一安排虽然在一定程度上解决了部分民商事判决的互认与执行问题，但适用范围较为有限，仅适用于当事人协议管辖的案件，大量没有协议管辖的案件仍然无法通过该机制得到解决。

In July 2008, the Supreme People's Court announced the "Arrangement on Mutual Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Cases between Mainland and Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Courts under the Agreement of the Parties." This arrangement stipulates that, in civil and commercial cases where a written jurisdiction agreement exists between a mainland people's court and a Hong Kong Special Administrative Region court, the parties may apply to either the mainland people's court or the Hong Kong SAR court for recognition and enforcement of a final, enforceable judgment involving monetary obligations. While this arrangement has, to some extent, addressed the issue of mutual recognition and enforcement of certain civil and commercial judgments, its scope remains relatively limited—applying only to cases falling under the jurisdiction agreed upon by the parties. Consequently, a significant number of cases that lack such an agreement-based jurisdiction still cannot be resolved through this mechanism.

As civil and commercial interactions between the two regions grow increasingly close, the need for a broader and more efficient mechanism for mutual recognition and enforcement of court judgments has become ever more urgent. After years of negotiation and dedicated efforts, on January 14, 2019, the Adjudication Committee of the Supreme People’s Court adopted the "Arrangement of the Supreme People’s Court on the Mutual Recognition and Enforcement of Civil and Commercial Judgments Between Mainland China and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" (hereafter referred to as the "New Arrangement"), which officially came into effect on January 29, 2024. The New Arrangement replaces the 2008 version, further expanding the scope of civil and commercial judgments that can be mutually recognized and enforced between the two regions—now covering a wider range of civil and commercial cases—and providing parties from both sides with more comprehensive judicial protection.

With increasingly close civil and commercial exchanges between the two regions, the need for a broader and more efficient mechanism to facilitate the mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments is growing ever more urgent. After years of consultation and dedicated efforts, on January 14, 2019, the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court approved the "Arrangement of the Supreme People's Court on Mutual Recognition and Enforcement of Civil and Commercial Case Judgments between Mainland China and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Courts" (hereinafter referred to as the "New Arrangement"), which will officially take effect on January 29, 2024. This new Arrangement replaces the 2008 version, further expanding the scope of civil and commercial judgments that can be recognized and enforced across both regions, covering a wider range of civil and commercial cases while providing more robust judicial protection for parties in both areas.

The new Arrangement explicitly stipulates that mutual recognition and enforcement of final civil and commercial judgments between courts in the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be governed by this Arrangement. Similarly, final civil compensation judgments issued in criminal cases will also be subject to mutual recognition and enforcement under this Arrangement. At the same time, the term "civil and commercial cases" has been clearly defined as cases that fall under the civil or commercial categories according to both mainland Chinese law and the laws of the Hong Kong SAR—but excludes judicial review cases heard by Hong Kong SAR courts, as well as other cases directly arising from the exercise of administrative powers.

The new Arrangement clearly stipulates that the mutual recognition and enforcement of effective judgments in civil and commercial cases between courts in mainland China and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will be governed by this Arrangement. Additionally, the mutual recognition and enforcement of enforceable civil compensation judgments issued in criminal cases also fall under this arrangement. At the same time, "civil and commercial cases" have been defined in detail—they refer to cases that are classified as civil or commercial according to the laws of both mainland China and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region—though they exclude judicial review cases heard by the courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, as well as other cases directly arising from the exercise of administrative authority.

Compared to the previous arrangement, the new Agreement is no longer limited to cases subject to agreed jurisdiction; instead, it now extends mutual recognition and enforcement to a wide range of ordinary civil and commercial disputes, such as contract disputes and tort claims. For instance, in a tort case where mainland consumers have suffered damages after purchasing defective products manufactured by a Hong Kong-based company, they can, following a successful judgment obtained from a mainland court, apply to a Hong Kong court under the new Agreement for recognition and enforcement of that ruling, thereby compelling the Hong Kong company to assume liability for compensation.

Compared to the previous arrangement, the new framework is no longer limited to cases governed by agreements—it now includes a wide range of judgments arising from ordinary civil and commercial disputes, such as contract disputes and infringement claims, within the scope of mutual recognition and enforcement. For instance, in infringement cases, mainland consumers who have suffered damages after purchasing defective products manufactured by a Hong Kong-based company can apply to the Hong Kong court for recognition and enforcement of the judgment under the new "Arrangement," provided they’ve already secured a favorable ruling in a mainland court. This allows them to hold the Hong Kong company accountable for compensation.

The new "Arrangement" refines the definition of "judgment," specifying that in mainland China, it includes judgments, rulings, and mediation agreements, among others. Payment Order However, this excludes preservation orders. In the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, it includes judgments, orders, decrees, and certificates of costs assessment—excluding anti-suit injunctions and interim relief orders. Additionally, clear definitions are provided for "final judgments": in Mainland China, these refer to second-instance judgments that cannot be appealed under the law, first-instance judgments against which no appeal has been filed within the statutory time limit, or first-instance judgments issued through judicial supervision procedures. In the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, they encompass judgments handed down by the Court of Final Appeal, the High Court’s Court of Appeal and Court of First Instance, the District Court, as well as those delivered by the Labour Tribunal, Lands Tribunal, Small Claims Tribunal, and Competition Tribunal—all of which have already become legally binding.

The new "Arrangement" has refined the definition of "judgment," which now includes judgments, rulings, mediation agreements, and payment orders issued in mainland China—but explicitly excludes preservation rulings. In contrast, in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the definition encompasses judgments, orders, awards, and certificates of taxation, while deliberately omitting injunctions or temporary relief orders. Clear provisions have also been established for "effective judgments": in mainland China, these refer to second-instance judgments, first-instance judgments that cannot be appealed or have not been appealed within the statutory time limit, as well as judgments handed down under the trial supervision procedure. Meanwhile, in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, "effective judgments" include legally binding decisions rendered by the Court of Final Appeal, the Court of Appeal, the High Court’s Court of First Instance, the District Court, and specialized tribunals such as the Labour Tribunal, Land Tribunal, Small Claims Tribunal, and Competition Tribunal.

This detailed regulation clarifies and enhances the accuracy of how judgments are recognized and enforced across the two regions, reducing disputes arising from ambiguous interpretations.

This refined regulation clarifies and enhances the accuracy of recognizing and enforcing judgments between the two jurisdictions, thereby reducing disputes caused by ambiguous concepts.

The new Arrangement provides detailed provisions regarding the determination of jurisdiction by the court of first instance. A court in the requested state shall recognize the jurisdiction of the court of first instance if one of the following conditions is met, provided that, under the laws of the requested state, the relevant lawsuit does not fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of its own courts: 1. At the time the court of first instance accepted the case, the defendant’s domicile was located within that jurisdiction; 2. At the time the court of first instance accepted the case, the defendant had established a representative office, branch, liaison office, or business location—entities that do not constitute independent legal persons—within the requested state, and the claim arises directly from the activities of such an entity; 3. The lawsuit was filed due to a contractual dispute, with the place of contract performance situated within the requested state; 4. The lawsuit stems from an infringement, and the act of infringement occurred within the requested state; 5. In cases involving contractual disputes or other property rights conflicts, the parties have explicitly agreed in writing to grant jurisdiction to the court of first instance—but only if all parties’ domiciles are located within the requested state. In such instances, the court of first instance should be the one corresponding to the place of contract performance, contract signing, or the location of the subject matter, reflecting the actual connection to the dispute. 6. If the parties have failed to raise objections to the jurisdiction of the court of first instance. Jurisdictional Objection And file a response to the lawsuit; however, if all parties involved reside within the territory of the requested party, the court of the original trial should be located in a place with a genuine connection to the dispute, such as the place where the contract is performed, the place where the contract was signed, or the location of the subject matter.

The new "Arrangement" includes detailed provisions regarding the determination of jurisdiction for the original court. Specifically, if any of the following circumstances apply—and provided the litigation does not fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the court in the requested party’s jurisdiction according to the relevant laws of that party—the court in the requested party’s jurisdiction shall rule that the original court has jurisdiction: 1. When the original court accepted the case, the defendant’s domicile was located within that party’s territory; 2. At the time the original court took jurisdiction, the defendant maintained representative offices, branches, offices, business locations, or other non-independent legal entities within that party’s territory, and the lawsuit was based on the activities of such an organization; 3. Lawsuits arising from contract disputes where the place of contract performance is situated within that party’s territory; 4. Litigation filed due to intellectual property infringement claims, provided the infringement occurred within that party’s jurisdiction; 5. In cases involving contract disputes or other property rights disputes, if the parties have explicitly agreed in writing to submit to the jurisdiction of the original court, yet both parties are domiciled within the requested party’s territory, then the original court will be deemed the place of contract performance, the location where the contract was signed, the site where the subject matter is situated, or any other location with a genuine connection to the dispute. Additionally, if the parties have neither raised objections to the original court’s jurisdiction nor failed to respond to the lawsuit, but both remain domiciled within the requested party’s territory, the original court will still be considered the proper venue—specifically, the place of contract performance, the location where the contract was executed, the site of the subject matter, or any other area directly tied to the dispute.

Additionally, jurisdiction of the court of first instance should only be recognized in cases involving intellectual property infringement disputes, as well as civil cases related to unfair competition disputes under Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People’s Republic of China—cases heard by mainland Chinese people’s courts—and counterfeiting disputes handled by courts in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, provided that the acts of infringement, unfair competition, or counterfeiting occurred within the territory of the court where the original trial took place, and the intellectual property rights or interests involved are legally entitled to protection within that jurisdiction. Clear jurisdictional rules will help prevent obstacles in the mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments arising from jurisdictional disputes, thereby enhancing judicial efficiency.

Additionally, for intellectual property infringement disputes, civil cases involving unfair competition disputes as outlined in Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China—tried by mainland courts—and counterfeiting disputes handled by courts in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region—if the infringing, unfair competitive, or counterfeit activities occur within the jurisdiction of the original court and the intellectual property rights and interests at issue are legally protected within that jurisdiction—then the original court should be recognized as having jurisdiction. Clear jurisdictional provisions can help prevent obstacles to the mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments arising from jurisdictional conflicts, while also enhancing judicial efficiency.

The new Arrangement also provides detailed regulations regarding the procedures for applying for recognition and enforcement. When seeking recognition and enforcement of judgments stipulated under this Arrangement, applicants in Mainland China should submit their applications to the Intermediate People’s Court located in either the applicant’s domicile or the respondent’s domicile, or at the location of the respondent’s property. In contrast, in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, applications should be made to the High Court. Applicants must file their request with **one** of the eligible People’s Courts; if an application is submitted to **more than one** court with jurisdiction, the case will fall under the jurisdiction of the first court that officially accepts it.

The new Arrangement also provides detailed regulations on the procedures for applying for recognition and enforcement. Applications for the recognition and enforcement of judgments under this arrangement must be submitted to the intermediate people's court in the applicant’s domicile, the respondent’s domicile, or the location of the respondent’s property within mainland China. In the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, such applications should be filed with the High Court. The applicant may choose to submit the application to any one of the eligible people’s courts. However, if an application is simultaneously filed with two or more competent people’s courts, jurisdiction will rest with the court that first accepted the case.

When applying, applicants must submit an application form, a copy of the judgment stamped by the court that issued the final and enforceable ruling, and a certificate from the same court confirming that the judgment has indeed become final and enforceable. If the judgment includes enforceable provisions, applicants must also provide proof that enforcement is possible in the jurisdiction of the original trial court. Additionally, if the judgment was rendered in absentia, applicants must include documentation verifying that the defendant was duly summoned according to legal procedures—unless the judgment explicitly states otherwise or the absent party has already acknowledged and requested enforcement. Finally, identity verification documents must also be provided. These guidelines ensure that parties follow a clear process when seeking mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments, thereby enhancing both the success rate of applications and the efficiency of enforcement proceedings.

When applying, an application form, a copy of the judgment stamped by the court that issued the final ruling, and a certificate from the same court must be submitted to confirm that the judgment is indeed enforceable. If the judgment includes enforceable provisions, it must also be verified that these provisions can be executed in the jurisdiction of the original trial court. In cases where the judgment was rendered in absentia, applicants must provide proof that the parties were duly summoned according to law—unless the judgment explicitly states otherwise, or if the absent party has already applied for recognition and enforcement, along with appropriate identity documentation. These guidelines offer parties clear instructions for seeking mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments, thereby enhancing the success rate of applications and streamlining the enforcement process.

On November 20, 2024, the Beijing No. 4 Intermediate People's Court concluded the case involving D and Zhang, who applied for recognition and enforcement of a civil and commercial judgment rendered by the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. This case marks the first instance in mainland China where the new Arrangement has been applied to recognize and enforce a civil or commercial judgment from a Hong Kong court since its implementation.

On November 20, 2024, the Beijing Fourth Intermediate People's Court concluded the case involving D and Zhang’s application for the recognition and enforcement of the civil and commercial judgment issued by the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. This case marks the first instance in mainland China where the new Arrangement has been applied to recognize and enforce civil and commercial judgments from Hong Kong courts.

On May 7, 2024, the Court of First Instance of the High Court in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region delivered a civil judgment in favor of Mr. D’s lawsuit against Mr. Zhang, ordering Mr. Zhang to pay Mr. D US$723,695.99, along with corresponding interest and costs. On September 4, 2024, Mr. D filed an application with the Beijing No. 4 Intermediate People’s Court, requesting that the aforementioned civil judgment be duly recognized and enforced according to law.

On May 7, 2024, the Court of First Instance of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region issued a civil judgment in D's lawsuit, which sought Zhang's return of the funds along with interest payments. The court ordered Zhang to pay D US$723,695.99, plus corresponding interest and legal expenses. On September 4, 2024, D applied to the Beijing Fourth Intermediate People's Court for the recognition and enforcement of the aforementioned civil judgment as required by law.

The Beijing No. 4 Intermediate People's Court, after review, determined that the civil and commercial judgment in question was a final ruling issued by a Hong Kong court following the entry into force of the new Arrangement. The court found no grounds under the new Arrangement for refusing recognition or enforcement, and thus ruled to recognize and enforce the aforementioned civil judgment. This case carries significant demonstrative value, serving not only as a practical reference for handling similar future cases but also clearly highlighting the positive role the new Arrangement plays in safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of parties involved and fostering smoother civil and commercial exchanges between the two regions. Through this landmark case, parties have directly experienced the convenience brought about by the new Arrangement, eliminating the need for cumbersome re-litigation procedures to secure their rights—and ultimately saving both time and resources.

After examination, the Beijing Fourth Intermediate People's Court determined that the civil and commercial judgment involved in the case constitutes an effective ruling issued by the Hong Kong court following the entry into force of the new "Arrangement," and there is no situation requiring non-recognition or non-enforcement as outlined in the new "Arrangement." Therefore, the court ruled to recognize and enforce the aforementioned civil judgment. This case holds significant demonstrative value—it not only provides practical guidance for handling similar cases in the future but also fully underscores the positive role the new Arrangement plays in protecting the legitimate rights and interests of the parties involved and fostering robust civil and commercial exchanges between the two regions. Through this case, the parties have genuinely experienced the convenience brought about by the new "Arrangement," allowing them to realize their rights without having to navigate cumbersome, repetitive litigation procedures, thereby saving considerable time and resources.

In December 2024, the Foshan Intermediate People's Court issued a ruling recognizing and enforcing an effective civil and commercial judgment rendered by the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. This case marks the first instance in which a mainland court in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area has applied the new Arrangement to recognize and enforce a civil or commercial judgment from a court in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region since the Arrangement came into effect.

In December 2024, the Intermediate People's Court of Foshan City issued a ruling recognizing and enforcing the effective civil and commercial judgments handed down by the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. This case marks the first instance in which mainland courts within the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area have recognized and enforced civil and commercial rulings from Hong Kong Special Administrative Region courts under the new Arrangement, following its implementation.

Chen Moubin, a resident of Mainland China, filed a civil lawsuit in Hong Kong against Hubei Shen Company and Hong Kong Shen Company over a contract dispute. On July 26, 2024, the Hong Kong court ruled that Hubei Shen Company and Hong Kong Shen Company must pay Chen Moubin rent, investment funds, along with corresponding interest and litigation costs. This judgment has now become legally binding. Since the companies hold assets in Foshan, on October 11, 2024, Chen Moubin submitted an application to the Foshan Intermediate People's Court seeking recognition and enforcement of the aforementioned civil and commercial judgment. Notably, neither Hubei Shen Company nor Hong Kong Shen Company raised any objections to this request.

Mainland resident Chen filed a civil lawsuit in Hong Kong over a contract dispute involving a Hubei Company and a Hong Kong Company. On July 26, 2024, the Hong Kong court ruled that the Hubei Company and the Hong Kong Company must pay Chen rent, investment funds, corresponding interest, as well as litigation costs. The judgment has now become legally binding. Given the companies' assets located in Foshan, on October 11, 2024, Chen applied to the Foshan Intermediate People's Court for recognition and enforcement of the aforementioned civil and commercial judgment. Both the Hubei Company and the Hong Kong Company have raised no objections to this application.

The Foshan Intermediate Court, after review, determined that the judgment in question is an effective civil and commercial ruling issued by a Hong Kong court following the implementation of the new Arrangement. The court found that the judgment does not contravene fundamental principles of mainland Chinese law or public interest, and it fully meets all the conditions outlined in the new Arrangement regarding the recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial judgments rendered by Hong Kong courts in mainland courts. Just two months after Chen’s application—on December 2—the Foshan Intermediate Court promptly ruled to recognize and enforce all the final civil judgments handed down by the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. This ruling officially took legal effect on December 16.

After review, the Foshan Intermediate People's Court determined that the judgment in question qualifies as an effective civil and commercial ruling issued by Hong Kong courts following the implementation of the new "Arrangement." The court found that this judgment does not contravene the fundamental principles of mainland law or public interest, and it fully meets the criteria outlined in the new "Arrangement" for mainland courts to recognize and enforce civil and commercial judgments from Hong Kong courts. On December 2nd—less than two months after Chen’s application—the Foshan Intermediate People's Court issued a ruling approving the recognition and enforcement of all valid civil judgments rendered by the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. By December 16th, the ruling had officially entered into legal effect.

This case holds significant benchmark value for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, further advancing the alignment of legal frameworks and the integration of mechanisms between the mainland and Hong Kong within the region. It provides an efficient judicial pathway for resolving the numerous cross-border civil and commercial disputes in the Greater Bay Area, thereby strongly supporting the economic integration and development of the region.

This case holds significant benchmark value for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, further advancing the alignment of judicial rules and mechanisms between mainland China and Hong Kong within the region. It paves an efficient judicial pathway for resolving the growing number of cross-border civil and commercial disputes in the Greater Bay Area, thereby effectively fostering the economic integration and development of the entire region.

Although the new Arrangement has made significant progress in promoting mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments between the mainland and Hong Kong, several challenges remain in practical implementation. On one hand, differences between the two regions' legal systems persist, leading to potential discrepancies in interpreting certain legal concepts and rules. This can give rise to disputes, particularly in areas such as jurisdictional determinations and substantive review of judgments. For instance, in contract disputes, the legal definitions of the "place of contract performance" may vary slightly between the mainland and Hong Kong, requiring careful judgment and coordination in each specific case. On the other hand, divergent judicial practices and traditions across different courts could also influence the process of mutual recognition and enforcement. Hong Kong courts place considerable emphasis on following precedents during trials, whereas mainland courts tend to rely more heavily on written statutes when making rulings. Such variations may result in differing interpretations of the same facts and approaches to applying the law in certain situations.

Although the new Arrangement has made significant strides in promoting mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments between mainland China and Hong Kong, some challenges still remain in practical implementation. On one hand, differences persist in the legal systems of the two regions, leading to varying interpretations of certain legal concepts and rules. These discrepancies can potentially give rise to disputes, particularly in areas such as jurisdictional determinations and substantive reviews of judgments. For instance, in contract disputes, there may be subtle differences in how mainland China and Hong Kong interpret legal provisions related to identifying the place where a contract is performed—a matter that demands careful judgment and coordination in specific cases. On the other hand, the trial practices and judicial traditions of courts in each region can also influence the process of mutual recognition and enforcement. Hong Kong courts tend to rely heavily on precedents during trials, whereas mainland courts place greater emphasis on rendering judgments based strictly on written law. This fundamental difference may result in divergent perspectives when assessing the same set of facts or applying the law in similar situations.

Looking ahead, the mainland and Hong Kong should further strengthen judicial exchanges and cooperation. By establishing regular mechanisms for judge exchanges and organizing academic seminars, we can enhance mutual understanding among judicial personnel regarding each other’s legal systems and trial practices, thereby reducing misunderstandings and disputes arising from existing differences. Meanwhile, with the rapid advancement of technology, we can explore leveraging digital tools—such as developing a cross-border judicial assistance information platform—to facilitate seamless sharing of case information, enable online submission of application documents, and ultimately boost the efficiency of mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments. Additionally, it is crucial to promptly adapt and refine relevant systems in response to emerging challenges and evolving circumstances, continuously improving the mechanisms for mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments between the two regions. This will provide a stronger judicial foundation for civil and commercial interactions across the border, ensuring the steady and sustained progress of the "One Country, Two Systems" principle.

Looking ahead, the mainland and Hong Kong should further strengthen judicial exchanges and cooperation. By establishing a regular mechanism for judge exchanges and academic seminars, we aim to enhance mutual understanding of each other’s legal systems and judicial practices among judicial personnel in both regions, thereby reducing misunderstandings and disputes arising from existing differences. Meanwhile, with the continuous advancement of technology, we can explore innovative ways to leverage information technology—such as developing a cross-border judicial assistance information platform—to enable functionalities like case information sharing and online submission of application materials, ultimately boosting the efficiency of mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments. Additionally, relevant systems should be promptly adjusted and refined in response to emerging challenges and evolving circumstances in practice, continuously optimizing the mechanism for mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments between the two places. This will provide a stronger judicial foundation for civil and commercial exchanges across the region, while supporting the "One Country, Two Systems" framework in achieving stability and long-term development.