China: Commercial Dispute Resolution: The Bar Overview

Introduction

2025 was a year marked by the unwavering efforts of Hong Kong legal professionals to innovate, alongside closer interaction and co-operation between the Hong Kong and Mainland Chinese legal sectors, aimed at capitalising on Hong Kong’s unique position.  These trends are set to continue in 2026.

This overview highlights three areas of development:

• new legislation that fosters cross-border co-operation on civil and commercial matters both in and out of Court, including the Mainland Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap.645);
• new developments in ADR as Hong Kong’s continuous drive to enhance its position as a global ADR centre gains momentum; and
• legal developments in respect of digital assets and trading.

Mainland Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap. 645)

Effective on 29 January 2024, Cap.645 embodies a regime for registration of Mainland judgments much simpler than the previous regime under the Mainland Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap.597). It changes the game by, amongst others, (i) covering both monetary and non-monetary reliefs; (ii) significantly expanding the levels of registrable Mainland Court judgments; (iii) removing the exclusive jurisdiction requirement (ie, choice of Mainland Court agreement); and (iv) extending coverage to judgments arising from compensation or damages awarded in criminal proceedings.

Although the transitional provisions (eg, exclusion of judgments rendered pursuant to choice of Mainland Court agreements made before 29 January 2024) significantly limited the amount of Cap.645 cases in 2024 (see eg, Deng Mian v Pan Rong [2025] HKCFI 3905), in 2025, there has been a bourgeoning of registration applications, and, importantly, cases involving interpretation of Cap.645’s provisions started to emerge: eg, HD Hyundai Infracore China Co., Ltd v Li Zhiwei [2025] HKCFI 5714.

While Cap.645 brings convenience, two caveats must not be neglected.

First, since the implementation of its predecessor ordinance (ie, Cap.597), more and more Mainland and Hong Kong litigators succumb to the temptation of taking advantage of the duality of legal systems through compartmentalising one dispute into two parts; they cherry-pick certain parts (eg, those subject to a choice of Mainland court agreement) to sue (certain parties) in Mainland and other parts (and/or other parties) in Hong Kong (eg, oral agreement, trust and economic tort claims) depending on which jurisdiction the client’s case would fare better in. Such manoeuvres may seem clever at first glance, but they inevitably expose the client’s claims to risks of res judicata and Henderson-type abuse: see eg, Chief Holdings (HK) Limited v He Chenguang [2025] HKCFI 4793. This area of the law remains frequently disputedin Hong Kong and English courts: eg, RZ3262019 Ltd (in liq) [2025] HKCFI 4350. With the removal of the exclusive jurisdiction requirement by Cap.645, it is expected that this trend of de facto forum shopping may gain traction despite the inherent risks hiding in its shadow.

Second, experience shows that statutes on reciprocal enforcement are always subject to intense challenges by judgment creditors. Despite the fact that the legislature and the administration have no doubt tried their very best to introduce greater clarity in the drafting of Cap.645, the lack of jurisprudence on the interpretation of many of its sections, together with the registration applications that just keep coming in, only foreshadow a growth of challenges in this area.

New Developments in ADR

Establishment of the IOMed headquarters in Hong Kong in May 2025

The headquarters of the International Organization of Mediation (IOMed) has been formally established in Hong Kong, following 33 countries’ entering into the Convention on the Establishment of the International Organization for Mediation in May 2025. Not only is the IOMed the first international inter-governmental organisation headquartered in Hong Kong, its establishment provides flexible, economical, and efficient mediation services for international disputes, consolidating Hong Kong’s position as a world-class mediation hub and international dispute resolution services centre.

The IOMed’s presence in Hong Kong offers a reliable and internationally recognised forum for resolving (i) international commercial disputes between private parties; (ii) commercial or investment disputes between a contracting state and a national of another state, and those involving a non-contracting state or an international organisation upon consent; and (iii) disputes between contracting states, and non-contracting states or international organisations upon consent. There are obvious advantages in selecting Hong Kong and the IOMed for international commercial disputes resolution: flexibility, cost-effectiveness, convenience and win-win co-operation between parties, underscored by Hong Kong’s unique status as the only bilingual common law jurisdiction in China.

Extension of “allowing Hong Kong-invested enterprises to adopt Hong Kong law” and “allowing Hong Kong-invested enterprises to choose Hong Kong as the seat of arbitration”

Since February 2025, the measures of “allowing Hong Kong-invested enterprises to adopt Hong Kong law” and “allowing Hong Kong-invested enterprises to choose Hong Kong as the seat of arbitration” have been extended. The former is now extended to the whole of Shenzhen and Zhuhai municipalities (previously only in Qianhai, Shenzhen since 2020): where either or both party/ies is/are Hong Kong-invested enterprises registered in Shenzhen or Zhuhai, the parties may agree to subject the contract to Hong Kong / Macao law. The latter is now extended to the nine Mainland municipalities in the GBA (previously only in Pilot Free Trade Zones since 2017): where either or both party/ies is/are Hong Kong-invested enterprises established and registered in the GBA, the parties may agree to choose Hong Kong/Macao as the seat of arbitration even in the absence of “Hong Kong/Macao-related elements”. These extensions are coupled with the broadened definition of “Hong Kong-invested enterprises” – enterprises wholly/partially invested by individuals, enterprises or other organisations from Hong Kong and established and registered in the Mainland may now benefit from these measures, there being no restrictions on industry or case type. The foregoing offer individuals and businesses in the GBA more flexibility in handling cross-border disputes, create a market-oriented and international business environment in the GBA, and also open up further opportunities for local legal and dispute resolution talents.

Digital Assets and Trading

There has been a concerted effort to develop the virtual asset industry in Hong Kong and an efficient and comprehensive legal and regulatory framework to match. The drive is set to continue in 2026.

Regulatory regime for stablecoin issuers

The Stablecoins Ordinance (Cap.656) came into effect on 1 August 2025.

The Ordinance sets out the minimum criteria that prospective issuers must fulfil in relation to their financial resources, reserve assets, risk management policies (including data security, fraud control, anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism controls), and transparency measures. The HKMA is empowered to license and supervise stablecoin issuers, as well as to investigate breaches and enforce sanctions against non-compliant entities.

Broader market uptake of stablecoins and digital assets trading may be encouraged.

Further regulations for virtual dealing

Currently, there are two statutory licensing systems for operators of virtual assets trading platforms.

In 2025, consultations took place in respect of regulating over-the-counter virtual asset dealing, custodian services, as well as related advisory and management services. The relevant bill is expected to be introduced into LegCo in 2026.

Crypto as property

In Re Gatecoin [2023] HKCFI 914, it was held that cryptocurrency constitutes property. However, the special nature of cryptocurrency means it does not fit neatly into the bifurcated concept of personal property, being neither a right (chose in action) nor a physical thing (chose in possession).

It is expected that courts may rely on different aspects of cryptocurrency to draw from processes and remedies that apply to either type of personal property:

• In Re Gatecoin, cryptocurrency was held to be capable of forming the subject matter of a trust because, inter alia, it was analogous to a fungible right (chose in action) given it is not necessary to identify the precise unit.
• The English Court in D’Aloia v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 2342 (Ch) highlighted the permanent nature of cryptocurrency and held that it was possible to follow cryptocurrency from one recipient to another, a process that was hitherto only available to physical things (chose in possession).

It remains to be seen whether causes of action traditionally limited to one type of personal property would apply to cryptocurrency (eg, the tort of conversion).

Details regarding legal protections for cryptocurrency as “property” remain to be worked out.

引言

香港法律界在2025年堅決推動發展創新，同時深化香港與內地法律界的互動合作，充分發揮香港的獨特優勢。這些發展勢必在2026持續。

本文重點探討三大發展領域：

• 包括香港法例第645章《內地民商事判決（相互強制執行）條例》在內，促進跨境民事及商事司法合作的全新立法，涵蓋法庭內外事情；
•  香港加快並持續強化全球替代爭議解決方法（ADR）中心地位，促進ADR新發展；及
•  有關數字資產與交易的法律發展。

第645章《內地民商事判決（相互強制執行）條例》

第645章自2024年1月29日起生效，新制定的內地判決登記制度遠較第597章 《內地判決(交互強制執行)條例》下的舊有制度簡單。新法例帶來了重大變革，包括：(i)涵蓋金錢與非金錢濟助；(ii)大幅擴大可登記的內地法院判決層級；(iii)取消專屬管轄權要求（即選用內地法院協議)；(iv)將適用範圍擴及刑事訴訟中判給的賠償或損害賠償判決。

儘管過渡性條文（例如排除依據2024年1月29日前訂立之選用內地法院協議作出的判決）大大限制了2024年期間依據第645章提出的案件數量（例如Deng Mian v Pan Rong [2025] HKCFI 3905），但登記申請數量在2025年大幅增加，更重要的是涉及詮釋第645章條文的案件開始出現：例如HD Hyundai Infracore China Co., Ltd v Li Zhiwei [2025] HKCFI 5714。

雖然第645章能帶來便利，但以下兩點不容忽視。

首先，自其前身條例（即第597章）實施以來，不少內地與香港訴訟律師將單一爭議分成兩部分，企圖佔據因兩地法律體系差異而衍生的相對訴訟優勢；他們挑選特定部分（例如受內地法院選擇協議約束的項目）在內地起訴（特定訴訟方），而將其他部分（及／或其他訴訟方）留在香港處理（例如口頭協議、信託及經濟侵權索償），視乎客戶的案情在哪個司法管轄區較有利。此舉乍看精明，卻必然使客戶面臨既判力及Henderson式濫用風險：參見例如Chief Holdings (HK) Limited v He Chenguang [2025] HKCFI 4793。此等法律領域的相關爭議在香港與英國頻頻發生：例如RZ3262019 Ltd (in liq) [2025] HKCFI 4350。隨著第645章移除專屬管轄權要求，儘管實質性挑選法院的趨勢潛藏風險，預期此趨勢仍可能持續。

其次，經驗顯示，關於相互執行的法條總是會受到判定債權人的激烈挑戰。儘管立法機關及政府當局無疑已竭盡所能，使第645章的行文更為清晰，但由於許多條文缺乏判例詮釋，加上登記申請源源不絕，預示著此領域的挑戰將會日益增加。

替代爭議解決方法的新發展

國際調解院（IOMed）總部於2025年5月落戶香港

在33個國家簽署《關於建立國際調解院的公約》後，IOMed總部於2025年5月正式落戶香港。IOMed是首個將總部落戶香港的政府間國際組織，為國際爭議提供靈活、經濟及高效的調解服務，其成立將鞏固香港作為全球調解之都和國際爭議解決服務中心的地位。

IOMed在香港成立，能夠提供一個可靠且獲國際認可的平台，用於解決：（i）私人主體間國際商事爭議；（ii）締約國與另一國國民之間的商事或投資爭議，及經同意後涉及非締約國或國際組織的商事或投資爭議；（iii）締約國之間的爭議，及經同意後涉及非締約國或國際組織的爭議。選擇香港和IOMed解決國際商事糾紛具有明顯優勢：靈活、具成本效益、便利、互利雙贏。香港作為中國境內唯一實行雙語普通法的司法管轄區的獨特地位，使這些優勢更為明顯。

「港資港法」和「港資港仲裁」的擴展

「港資港法」和「港資港仲裁」兩項措施已自2025年2月起擴展。「港資港法」由深圳前海擴展至全深圳及珠海，凡當事人一方或雙方為在深圳或珠海登記設立的香港投資企業，可協議選擇香港或澳門特區法律為合同適用法律。「港資港仲裁」則從內地自貿試驗區擴展至粵港澳大灣區內地九市 （大灣區），凡當事人一方或雙方為在內地自貿試驗區及大灣區登記設立的香港投資企業，可在無「涉港澳因素」的情況下，選擇香港、澳門作為仲裁地。此外，「香港投資企業」的定義獲放寬：全部或部分由香港特區的個人、企業或者其他組織投資，依法在內地登記設立的企業均可受惠，不設行業及案件類別限制。上述措施為大灣區的個人和企業可更靈活處理跨境糾紛，使大灣區商業環境趨向市場化和國際化，亦為本地法律和爭議解決人才開闢了更多機遇。

數字資產及交易

香港致力推動虛擬資產行業發展，建立高效且完善的法律及監管框架。這趨勢將在 2026 年持續。

穩定幣發行人監管制度

《穩定幣條例》（第656章）已於2025年8月1日生效。

條例規定擬議發行人必須滿足的最低準則，涵蓋其財務資源、儲備資產、風險管理政策（包括數據安全、反詐騙、打擊洗錢及恐怖分子資金籌集）以及提高透明度的措施。香港金管局獲授權發牌及監管穩定幣發行人，亦有權調查違規行為及制裁違規者。

預料市場更廣泛地採用穩定幣，促進本港數位交易發展。

虛擬資產交易的進一步監管

目前，香港法例設有兩套發牌制度針對虛擬資產交易平台營運者。

2025年，政府就監管虛擬資產場外交易（OTC）、託管服務以及相關諮詢和管理服務的立法建議進行了諮詢。預計於2026年向立法會提交相關條例草案。

以加密貨幣為「財產」

Re Gatecoin [2023] HKCFI 914 一案裁定加密貨幣構成「財產」，然而，加密貨幣在性質上無法完全契合個人財產的二分概念，因它既非據法權產（chose in action），亦非實物財產（chose in possession）。

法院可能會根據加密貨幣的不同特性，援引適用於上述兩類個人財產的程序和救濟措施：

• 在Re Gatecoin案中，加密貨幣被判定為可構成信託標的事物，原因之一是它類同於可互換資產（fungible mass），無須識別特定單位。
• 英國法院在 D’Aloia v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 2342 (Ch) 案中，強調加密貨幣的永久性質，並裁定可以在不同接收者之間「追蹤」（following）資產流向；這種程序以往僅適用於實物財產。

傳統上僅限於某一類個人財產的訴訟因由（例如侵佔（conversion））是否適用於加密貨幣亦是一個課題。法律對加密貨幣作為「財產」的具體保護仍有待釐清。