Case: Beijing Renji Real Estate Development Group Co., Ltd v Zhu Min [2026] HKCFI 197
Case Highlights
Case Highlights
Enforcement at Common Law: The Court of First Instance granted summary judgment to enforce a judgment of the Beijing Higher People’s Court for over RMB 192 million.
Trial Supervision System vs. Finality of Judgment: The Court confirmed that the mere existence of the Mainland’s “trial supervision” system does not render a judgment inconclusive for enforcement purposes, absent evidence of a likelihood of retrial actually being ordered.
Public Policy: Arguments alleging a breach of natural justice were rejected as, inter alia, attempts to impeach the merits of the foreign judgment.
Mr William Wong SC, Mr Lai Chun Ho, and Mr Han Sheng Lim acted for the successful Plaintiff in obtaining summary judgment.
Background
The Plaintiff (“P”) sought to enforce a judgment issued by the Beijing Higher People’s Court (“BHPC Judgment”) against the Defendant (“D”) at common law. The dispute arose from a guarantee provided by D in relation to an investment in a fishery project.
The BHPC Judgment had held D liable for a principal sum of RMB 150 million plus interest. D opposed the enforcement in Hong Kong on two primary grounds:
“Trial Supervision Ground” – D argued that the BHPC Judgment was not “final and conclusive” because of the potential for retrial under Mainland civil procedure law.
“Public Policy Ground” – D argued that enforcement would be in breach of natural justice, alleging that in arriving at its decision, the BHPC relied on an arbitral award to which D was not a party.
The Decision
Deputy High Court Judge MK Liu granted summary judgment in favour of P, rejecting both of D’s defences.
- Trial Supervision Ground
The Court applied the principles recently set out by Deputy High Court Judge Jonathan Wong in Sunsco International Holdings Ltd v Lin Chunrong [2025] HKCFI 5238. DHCJ Wong held that the “trial supervision” procedure does not per se render a Mainland judgment non-final. The paramount consideration is the likelihood of a retrial being ordered.
D failed to establish that a retrial was likely. It was wrong for D to suggest that the BHPC Judgment lacked evidentiary support. A number of other defences that D intended to raise had already been rejected by the Mainland Court or had never been raised by D before the Mainland Courts. D could not show that an allegedly ongoing criminal investigation in the Mainland would yield new evidence that could be used to secure a retrial.
- Public Policy Ground
The Court reiterated the established principle that a defendant cannot impeach a foreign judgment on its merits. D contended that the BHPC had breached natural justice by effectively binding him to findings from an arbitration he did not participate in.
The Judge rejected this, finding that instead of treating the arbitral award as binding on D, the BHPC had made independent findings of fact based on available evidence, including a criminal judgment against a third party. The Court found no breach of the “no accusation, no trial” principle under Mainland law and noted D had been given ample opportunity to present his case in the Mainland proceedings.
Key Takeaways
This decision serves as a robust affirmation of the enforceability of Mainland judgments in Hong Kong at common law. It clarifies that:-
The theoretical possibility of a retrial in the Mainland is insufficient to block enforcement. Concrete evidence of a likely retrial is required.
The Hong Kong Court will be vigilant against “public policy” defences that are, in reality, attempts to re-litigate the underlying merits or to raise new arguments which the defendant neglected to raise in the Mainland Court.
Read the judgment here: https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=176222&currpage=T
Mr William Wong SC, Mr Lai Chun Ho, and Mr Lim Han Sheng, instructed by Nixon Peabody CWL, acted for the Plaintiff.
