Hong Kong-Mainland Service of Court Documents: A Long-Awaited Upgrade

Cross border service of court documents between Hong Kong and the Mainland has long been considered by the practitioners as slow, rigid and uncertain. On 20 April 2026, a new Arrangement on Mutual Service of Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Proceedings between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (the 2026 Arrangement) was signed, replacing the existing arrangement that has been in place since 1999. 

What prompted the change

Under the current framework, service proceeds through court-to-court entrustment. In practice, that usually means personal service arranged through judicial authorities.

The difficulties are well known. Defendants may be hard to locate or uncooperative, alternative methods are limited, and failed service attempts often leave parties with little choice but to apply for substituted service, with added cost and delay.

What the 2026 Arrangement does

The 2026 Arrangement expands the available methods of service. Importantly, it allows parties to take a more flexible and pragmatic approach.

How service can be effected

The 2026 Arrangement recognises five modes of service:

1. Court-to-court entrustment, now streamlined. Judicial documents may be transmitted electronically with the same legal effect as originals, and the entrusted court must complete service within two months. Where the judicial documents are not in Chinese, a Chinese translation is required.
2. Postal service, with service treated as effective where the defendant signs either the acknowledgement of receipt or the postal receipt.
3. Electronic service, including email, fax or messaging applications, where the defendant has consented, provided an electronic address in the proceedings, or demonstrated acceptance by conduct.
4. Service through lawyers or authorised bodies. Hong Kong law firms or registered foreign law firms may effect service in Hong Kong for Mainland proceedings, while Mainland law firms or notarisation bodies may do so in the Mainland for Hong Kong proceedings.
5. Public announcement, as a last resort, via information networks with disseminating power and influence in both jurisdictions, with service deemed effective 60 days after publication.

Parallel service and effective dates

Parties may use more than one method of service at the same time. Where they do, service is treated as effective on the earliest date on which any allowed method is completed.

Service may also be treated as effective even in the absence of documentary proof where it is clear that the defendant has received the documents - for example, by referring to them in court or acting upon them.

Practical takeaways

• Transaction documents should be reviewed. Parties should consider including express consent to service of process by electronic means (such as email or specified messaging methods). This can materially shorten the path to effective service if disputes arise.
• Parallel service is expressly permitted and can significantly reduce timing risk in cross-border proceedings.
• Care is required in Mainland proceedings against Hong Kong companies. Where court to court service is used, the letter of entrustment must include a printed copy of the company’s latest registered address from the Hong Kong Companies Registry.
• The new framework is not yet in force. Implementation requires a judicial interpretation from the Supreme People’s Court and corresponding steps in Hong Kong, including an update to the current Order 11 rule 5A of the Rules of the High Court.