Our Edward and Arthur recently acted for the plaintiff, who was awarded summary judgment and 95% of the costs of this application; while the defendant’s application to amend his Defence and introduce a counterclaim was dismissed.

Expert evidence on PRC law was tendered by the plaintiff, addressing the finality and enforceability of the Mainland judgment as well as the operation of the PRC retrial procedure.

On 24 July 2026, the District Court entered summary judgment enforcing a final judgment of the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court for:

• RMB 1.9 million;

• RMB 43,800 in Mainland court fees; and

• the Hong Kong Dollar equivalent of those sums at the exchange rate prevailing at the time of payment

💡 Key takeaways:

1. Retrial procedures do not, without more, deprive a Mainland judgment of finality

The relevant question is the practical likelihood of a retrial. Here, the statutory time limit had expired, no retrial application had ever been made, and the Court found that the likelihood of a retrial was “extremely low or practically non-existent”.

2. A party's failure to use available remedies may debar a later complaint of substantial injustice

The defendant had been legally represented throughout the Mainland proceedings but neither appealed nor applied for a retrial. The Court rejected the attempt to raise alleged procedural unfairness only when enforcement was sought approximately six years later.

3. Enforcement proceedings are not an appeal against the foreign judgment 

A defendant cannot reopen questions of fact or law already determined by the foreign court merely by alleging that its decision was wrong. The Hong Kong Court will not re-litigate those issues in the absence of an established ground for impeaching the judgment.

4. New defence and counterclaims cannot be used to relitigate the underlying dispute 

If the defendant’s alleged oral agreement had been raised before the Mainland courts, issue estoppel applied. If it had not been raised, it could and should have been, such that raising it in Hong Kong would constitute a Henderson v Henderson abuse of process.

5. Severability permits enforcement of the principal judgment debt notwithstanding a triable issue over double interest 

The Court held that the issue of whether double interest under Article 253 of the PRC Civil Procedure Law was penal and unenforceable in Hong Kong was severable from the principal judgment sum and Mainland court fees. Although the defendant was granted unconditional leave to defend that discrete issue, it did not prevent the Court from entering summary judgment for the enforceable parts of the Mainland judgment. 

Judgment is available here.

To explore more about Edward and Arthur here.

---

我們的陳逸文大律師及温梓韜大律師最近代表原告人出庭。原告人最終獲判勝訴（獲判簡易判決），並獲批給是次申請95%的訴訟各方費用；而被告人欲修改其答辯書及提出反申索的申請則被駁回。

於本案中，原告人提供了有關中國內地法律的專家證據，內容涵蓋內地判決的確定性與執行力，以及中國內地再審程序的運作。

於2026年7月24日，香港區域法院頒下簡易判決，執行深圳市中級人民法院的最終判決，判令被告人支付：

• 人民幣190萬元；

• 人民幣43，800元的內地法院訴訟費；及

• 按付款時的匯率折算是等值港幣金額

💡 本案的核心要點：

1. 僅存在再審程序，本身不足以剝奪內地判決的確定性（Finality）

關鍵問題在於「實際上重審的可能性」。本案中，法定時效已經屆滿，且從未提出過再審申請，法院因而認定重審的可能性「極低或實際上並不存在」。

2. 一方未能善用現有救濟途徑，可導致其日後無權以「重大不公」為由提出投訴

被告人在整個內地訴訟過程中均有法律代表，但既未提出上訴，亦未申請再審。原告人於約六年後申請執行判決時，被告人始試圖以涉嫌程序不公為由抗辯，法院對此不予接納。

3. 執行判決程序並非針對外地判決的上訴

被告人不能僅憑聲稱外地法院裁決有誤，便重新爭議該法院已作裁決的事實或法律問題。在缺乏確立可撤銷判決（Impeaching the judgment）之法定理由的情況下，香港法院不會重新審理該等爭議。

4. 重新提出的辯護理由及反申索，不得用作重新審理標的爭議（Relitigate the underlying dispute）

若被告人所聲稱的口頭協議先前已向內地法院提出，則受「爭點阻礙」（Issue Estoppel）原則所限；若先前未曾提出，則該事宜本應且可以於當時提出，因此於香港再次提出將構成 Henderson v Henderson 原則下的「濫用訴訟程序」（Abuse of Process）。

5. 可分割性（Severability）原則允許法院在「雙倍遲延履行利息」存在可爭辯議題的情況下，仍可執行主判決債務

法院裁定，關於《中華人民共和國民事訴訟法》第 253 條下的「雙倍遲延履行利息」是否屬懲罰性性質而無法在香港執行的議題，可與主判決金額及內地法院訴訟費分割。儘管被告人獲批無條件答辯許可（Unconditional leave to defend）以就該獨立議題進行抗辯，但這並不妨礙法院就內地判決中可執行的部分頒下簡式判決（Summary Judgment）。

瀏覽判決書。

按此了解更多關於陳大律師及溫大律師的資料。