…
Institutional Upgrade for the “First Mile” of Cross-Border Litigation: New
Arrangement on Service of Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters
between the Mainland and Hong Kong
On 20 April 2026, the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China and the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region signed the Arrangement on Mutual Service of Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Proceedings between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (the “New Arrangement”) in Beijing. The New Arrangement addresses a fundamental step in cross-border civil and commercial litigation that often determines whether a case can proceed: the effective service of judicial documents on parties located in the other jurisdiction.
- Major Practical Significance of the New Arrangement
In cross-border litigation, the valid service of judicial documents directly affects whether proceedings can commence, whether procedures are valid, whether a case can proceed, and whether subsequent judgments can be enforced. The New Arrangement will substantially improve the channels and methods for Hong Kong parties to serve judicial documents on addressees in the Mainland.
As background, the 1999 Arrangement for Mutual Service of Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Proceedings between the Mainland and Hong Kong Courts (the “Old Arrangement”) has been in force for more than two decades. Over this period, the number of cross-border cases between the two jurisdictions has risen markedly. As the Secretary for Justice of Hong Kong informed the Legislative Council on 27 April 2026, applications for mutual service of judicial documents increased from 359 in 1999 to 2,388 in 2024.
Under the Old Arrangement, Hong Kong judicial documents could only be served in the Mainland through entrusted service, giving rise to practical problems such as inaccurate service addresses, multiple layers of entrustment, and lengthy delays. A typical pain point was that even when a seemingly valid address was known, it could not be used in the entrusted procedure due to misalignment between entrusted documents, address details, and service rules, undermining litigation efficiency.
The New Arrangement therefore comprehensively upgrades the Old Arrangement to tackle these pain points. Its core objectives are to diversify service methods, shorten service pathways, raise success rates of service, and maintain judicial supervision and procedural safeguards for addressees while improving efficiency.
- The New Arrangement Adds Diverse Service Channels Beyond Entrusted Service
- The Old Arrangement Provided Only Entrusted Service
For service of Hong Kong judicial documents in the Mainland, the Old Arrangement offered only a single channel: entrusted service, which had clear limitations in efficiency and flexibility.
The New Arrangement retains entrusted service. In addition to the existing mechanism where higher people’s courts of the Mainland and the High Court of Hong Kong may mutually entrust service, and the Supreme People’s Court may directly entrust the High Court of Hong Kong, it adds a mechanism under which the Supreme People’s Court may authorize certain intermediate and primary people’s courts to mutually entrust service with the High Court of Hong Kong.
This means some cases will no longer need to be escalated to higher people’s courts before transmission to Hong Kong courts, shortening the procedural chain. For numerous contract, corporate, financial, and trade disputes heard by primary or intermediate people’s courts in the Mainland, service requests can connect more directly with Hong Kong courts once the relevant courts are authorized, reducing transmission time and information loss.
- The New Arrangement Establishes Diverse Service Methods
The New Arrangement keeps entrusted service and explicitly permits postal service, electronic service, and service by authorized entities as mutually recognized methods. If multiple methods are used simultaneously, service is deemed completed on the earliest effective date. These methods align better with commercial practice where legally required and court-approved.
(1) Postal Service
Article 13 provides that when a Mainland people’s court serves judicial documents on a Hong Kong addressee by post, it shall attach an acknowledgment of service. When a Hong Kong court serves documents on a Mainland addressee by post, it shall provide an original sealed judicial document and an acknowledgment or other proof for the addressee’s signature. Service is deemed complete on the date of signature on the proof; signature on the postal receipt without signing the proof also constitutes valid service.
Postal service becomes a formal cross-border channel with clear proof and timing rules, offering low cost, direct operation, and predictable timing—especially suitable for cases with confirmed addresses and low risk of evasion of service.
(2) Electronic Service
Article 14 allows electronic service via verifiable means where the addressee expressly consents, voluntarily provides an electronic address for service, or accepts service by responding or participating in proceedings. Eligible media include fax, email, mobile communication, and other instant-receipt systems. This is critical for cross-border commercial entities relying on digital communication, shifting the focus from physical delivery to verifiable receipt.
(3) Service by Authorized Entities
Article 15 states that a Mainland people’s court may, upon review, allow a party to arrange service via a Hong Kong law firm or registered foreign law firm if not prohibited by law. Conversely, Hong Kong parties may serve Mainland addressees through Mainland law firms or notary public institutions. Local legal and notary professionals are familiar with address verification, service documentation, and evidence preservation, boosting success rates and procedural compliance.
(4) Service by Public Notice
Article 17 permits service by public notice if other methods fail. Mainland courts shall publish notices on influential online platforms in both jurisdictions; Hong Kong courts may entrust Mainland courts to assist with public notice service in the Mainland when necessary. Service is deemed complete 60 days after publication, providing a fallback for missing or evasive addressees and preventing cases from stalling.
In sum, parties may design a tailored service strategy combining postal, electronic, authorized-entity, and other methods under the New Arrangement.
III. Practical Implications of the New Arrangement
- Preserve the counterparty’s physical address, electronic address, corporate registration details, and actual operating address before initiating cross-border disputes.
- Include clear service clauses in contracts: specify email, contact address, representative, confirmation methods, and notification obligations for address changes.
- Plaintiffs should select optimal channels early: use postal or electronic service for clear addresses and cooperative parties; engage lawyers or notaries for high-evasion cases, or preserve evidence for potential public notice.
- Defendants should recognize that refusal, delay, or evasion may not halt proceedings; verifiable receipt can still constitute valid service.
Notably, the New Arrangement has been signed but not yet entered into force. It will take effect following the issuance of relevant judicial interpretations by the Supreme People’s Court and completion of local legislative amendments in Hong Kong, with the effective date to be jointly announced. The Old Arrangement remains applicable in the interim.
Conclusion
The New Arrangement is a major procedural upgrade to cross-border judicial assistance between the Mainland and Hong Kong. It does not alter substantive laws or directly govern recognition and enforcement of judgments, but resolves the core bottleneck of difficulty in service—the most common and delay-prone step in cross-border litigation.
For enterprises and high-net-worth individuals, the revised service regime may accelerate cross-border litigation timelines and narrow procedural defenses, elevating the importance of evidence documentation and compliance. Once in force, parties should integrate service strategy into overall litigation planning at an early stage, rather than reacting passively after proceedings start. Parties in Hong Kong seeking to serve Mainland addressees may combine multiple service methods to improve success and gain procedural advantage.
This article was co-authored by Partner and Head of Litigation and Dispute Resolution, Heidi Chui, Cross-border Practice Director, Stephen Wong, Associate Victor Zhang. For further inquiries or more details, please contact our Heidi Chui.
This news update is for information purposes only. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be treated as such. Stevenson, Wong & Co. will not be liable to you in respect of any special, indirect or consequential loss or damage arising from or in connection with any decision made, action or inaction taken in reliance on the information set out herein.