…
On 20 April 2026, the Hong Kong Government and the Supreme People’s Court signed a new Arrangement on Mutual Service of Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Proceedings (the “New Arrangement”), marking an important step towards modernising cross-border judicial cooperation.
The New Arrangement will come into effect upon completion of the relevant legislative procedures in Hong Kong.
Background
Since 1999, cross‑border service between Hong Kong and the Mainland has operated under a court‑to‑court entrustment mechanism, under which Hong Kong courts transmit judicial documents to their Mainland counterparts for onward service, and vice versa.
Over time, requests for mutual service of judicial documents have surged alongside the growth in cross-boundary interactions. Against this backdrop, the following challenges have become apparent:
- Difficulty in locating respondents: In many cases, the intended recipient is no longer at the address provided or cannot be traced. Although Mainland courts may assist in attempting to locate updated addresses, such efforts are not always successful.
- Limited flexibility and procedural complexity: Parties in Hong Kong have been restricted to effecting service in the Mainland through court transmission, with no alternative service methods formally available, resulting in an inflexible process. At the same time, the court entrustment mechanism involves multiple tiers of judicial administration, such that requests initiated by lower courts must be escalated through higher courts before service is effected, leading to delays and procedural complexity.
Expanded and Multi-Route Model of Service
Under the New Arrangement, service is no longer limited to court-to-court entrustment. The following modes of service are also recognised:
- Postal service;
- Electronic service, such as fax, e-mail and mobile communications (where the recipient has expressly consented or voluntarily provided an electronic address for service); and
- Direct service through authorised persons, including legal representatives or notarisation institutions.
These modes may be used in parallel. Service may be regarded as effective based on the earliest successful method, which significantly enhances efficiency.
It should be noted that judicial documents to be served in the Mainland must be in the Chinese language. Where the documents are not in Chinese, a Chinese translation must be provided.
Where these methods prove unsuccessful, service may be effected by public announcement. In such cases:
- The announcement must be published in media outlets with adequate circulation and influence in both the Mainland and Hong Kong; and
- Service is deemed effective upon the expiry of 60 days from the date of the announcement.
Proof of Service
Proof that a document has been received may take various forms, including:
- A certificate or proof of service issued by the court responsible for effecting service;
- Signature by the recipient on the relevant service documents; and
- Electronic system‑generated records evidencing receipt.
Importantly, service may also be deemed effective where the recipient has referred to the served judicial documents before the adjudicating court or has acted in accordance with those contents.
Relevance to Divorce Proceedings in Hong Kong involving parties in the Mainland
The New Arrangement is expected to have practical significance in divorce proceedings involving the Mainland.
Whilst it is not necessary to seek prior leave from the Hong Kong courts to serve divorce petitions and other documents in matrimonial proceedings out of jurisdiction, Order 11 of the Rules of the High Court must be complied with. Proceedings may be delayed if the petition or other documents cannot be properly brought to the attention of the respondent or other interested third parties in the Mainland.
The New Arrangement is therefore expected to facilitate the cross-border service of divorce petitions between Hong Kong and the Mainland, enhancing both efficiency and procedural flexibility, particularly in cases involving non‑cooperation or uncertainty as to the whereabouts of the respondent or other interested third parties.
Please contact our Partners, Wendy Lam and Calvin Lo, for any enquiries or further information.
This article 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.