Service of Judicial Documents Under the 2026 China–hong Kong Arrangement, a Practical Guide for Commercial Litigators

Last reviewed: 14 May 2026

The rules governing the service of judicial documents between Hong Kong and Mainland China have undergone their most significant overhaul in more than two decades. The 2026 Arrangement on Mutual Service of Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Proceedings, announced by the HKSAR Department of Justice on 21 April 2026, replaces the framework that had been in operation since 1999 and introduces multiple new channels through which service of judicial documents in Hong Kong and Mainland China can be effected.

For commercial litigators, in-house counsel and dispute resolution teams, the practical consequences are immediate: new modes of direct service, revised evidentiary thresholds for proof of service, a formalised role for China-Appointed Attesting Officers, and tighter alignment with the Rules of the High Court. This guide sets out the step-by-step compliance process, comparison tables, checklists and template outlines that practitioners need to operationalise the 2026 changes without delay.

Executive Summary: What Hong Kong Litigators Must Know Now

The 2026 China–Hong Kong arrangement fundamentally restructures cross-border service of judicial documents between the two jurisdictions. Rather than relying almost exclusively on the court-to-court entrustment channel that characterised the 1999 framework, the new arrangement recognises multiple parallel routes, each with distinct procedural requirements and evidence standards. Below is a concise summary of what has changed and what action is needed.

• Expanded modes of service. The arrangement now formally recognises at least three principal channels: court-to-court entrustment, direct service by parties or their legal representatives, and service facilitated through a China-Appointed Attesting Officer (CAO). Each mode carries its own proof requirements.
• Direct service is now available. In defined circumstances, Hong Kong parties and their lawyers may serve documents directly in Mainland China without routing through the courts, a significant departure from the previous regime.
• Evidence thresholds have been clarified. The arrangement sets out specific documentary evidence needed to prove effective service, including signed delivery records, CAO attestation certificates and, where applicable, Mainland court service certificates.
• Alignment with Hong Kong procedural rules. The arrangement is designed to operate alongside Order 65 of the Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A), meaning that compliance with both the arrangement and local procedural requirements is essential.
• Immediate action required. Practitioners should review current pending matters, update internal service protocols, brief clients on the new timelines, and engage a CAO where Mainland service is anticipated.

Legal Basis and Scope of the 2026 China–Hong Kong Arrangement

The legal foundation for the mutual service of judicial documents between Hong Kong and Mainland China rests on bilateral arrangements negotiated between the HKSAR Department of Justice and the Supreme People’s Court. The 2026 arrangement supersedes the 1999 framework and was the subject of a Legislative Council panel paper (LC Paper No. CB(3)335/2026(05)) that set out the policy rationale and implementation timetable.

Key Provisions in Plain Language

The arrangement applies to civil and commercial proceedings in both jurisdictions. It covers originating process (writs, originating summonses), interlocutory applications, witness summonses and other judicial documents that require formal service on a party located across the boundary. The arrangement expressly identifies the permissible modes of service, prescribes the form and content of the request for service, specifies language and translation requirements, and sets out the obligations of both the requesting and the receiving court. Critically, the 2026 text introduces provisions that permit parties to effect service themselves or through their legal representatives in circumstances where the arrangement and local law allow, a channel that was not formally available under the 1999 regime.

Interaction with the Rules of the High Court (Order 65) and Other Instruments

The arrangement does not displace Hong Kong’s domestic procedural rules. Order 65 of the Rules of the High Court continues to govern personal service, substituted service and the filing of affidavits of service within Hong Kong proceedings. Where a party seeks to serve out of the jurisdiction into Mainland China, the arrangement provides the primary mechanism, but the Rules of the High Court still dictate the procedural steps required at the Hong Kong end, such as obtaining leave for service out, filing the requisite court forms, and satisfying the court that service was properly effected.

Hong Kong is not a party to the Hague Service Convention with respect to Mainland China, so the arrangement, not the Hague framework, governs this cross-border channel.

Modes of Service of Judicial Documents Under the 2026 Arrangement

The 2026 arrangement recognises multiple parallel channels for cross-border service of judicial documents between Hong Kong and Mainland China. Each mode is suited to different case circumstances and carries distinct procedural requirements. Commercial litigators should assess which mode is optimal at the outset of proceedings, factoring in urgency, the nature of the documents, and the availability of the intended recipient.

Court-to-Court Entrustment

This is the legacy channel carried forward from the 1999 arrangement, updated for 2026 requirements. Under this mode, the Hong Kong court transmits the judicial documents to the designated Mainland court (or vice versa) through official channels. The requesting court prepares a formal letter of entrustment accompanied by the documents to be served and any required translations. The receiving court then effects service in accordance with its own local procedural rules and returns a certificate or receipt confirming service. Court-to-court entrustment remains the default where the arrangement does not permit direct service, and it is particularly suited to cases involving originating process or where a formal judicial imprimatur is strategically desirable.

Industry observers note that turnaround times under this channel have historically been the longest, and early indications suggest the 2026 arrangement aims to reduce delays through standardised forms and electronic transmission where feasible.

Direct Service by Hong Kong Parties

The most significant innovation in the 2026 framework is the formal recognition that, in defined circumstances, Hong Kong parties or their legal representatives may effect service of process in Mainland China directly. This channel is subject to the conditions set out in the arrangement and must also comply with any applicable Mainland local law requirements. Where direct service is used, the serving party bears the burden of proving that service was properly effected, requiring signed delivery records and, where the Hong Kong court so directs, certification by a China-Appointed Attesting Officer.

This mode is particularly valuable for commercial litigators serving documents on Mainland-based corporate defendants with known addresses, where speed is essential and the formality of court-to-court entrustment would cause unacceptable delay.

Service by Law Firms

The arrangement also contemplates service being effected by Hong Kong law firms or registered foreign law firms with a Mainland presence. Where the serving party’s solicitors have offices or approved associations on the Mainland, they may be able to coordinate local delivery directly, provided they comply with both the arrangement’s requirements and relevant Mainland regulations governing the activities of foreign law firms. The evidence of service must still satisfy Hong Kong court standards, delivery records, witness statements or affidavits, and any required CAO attestation.

China-Appointed Attesting Officer (CAO) Route

A China-Appointed Attesting Officer plays a critical evidential role under the 2026 arrangement. Where service is effected outside the court-to-court entrustment channel, the Hong Kong court may require, or practitioners may choose to obtain, CAO certification to bolster the proof of service. The CAO attests that the documents were delivered to the specified recipient at a specified address on a given date. This attestation carries significant weight before Hong Kong courts and is the likely practical standard for proving cross-border service in contested cases.

Comparison Table, Modes of Cross-Border Service Hong Kong to Mainland China

Step-by-Step Process for Service of Judicial Documents in Hong Kong and Mainland China, Realistic Timelines

Practitioners need a clear, sequential workflow to effect service under the 2026 arrangement. The following step-by-step process covers preparation, mode selection, filing and evidence. Each step should be documented contemporaneously to facilitate proof of service if challenged.

Pre-Service Checklist

Before initiating service, assemble the following:

1. Identify the documents to be served. Originating process (writ, originating summons), interlocutory applications, sealed court orders, witness summonses or other judicial documents.
2. Prepare certified copies. Obtain sealed or certified copies from the Hong Kong court registry as required under the Rules of the High Court.
3. Arrange translations. If the documents are in English, arrange certified Chinese translations. Most Mainland courts and recipients will require Chinese-language versions.
4. Confirm the recipient’s address. Verify the Mainland address through company registry searches, correspondence records or investigative inquiries.
5. Engage a CAO (if needed). Where the chosen mode of service requires or is likely to benefit from CAO certification, instruct the attesting officer early to avoid delays.
6. Review the arrangement text. Confirm which modes of service are available for the specific type of document and proceeding.

Step A, Preparing Documents in Hong Kong

Draft or finalise the documents to be served and ensure they are in proper form under Hong Kong procedural rules. For originating process, this includes the endorsed writ or originating summons with the required indorsement of claim. All documents should be accompanied by a covering letter identifying the proceedings, the parties and the basis for service under the 2026 arrangement. Where court-to-court entrustment is used, prepare the formal letter of entrustment in the prescribed form. Ensure all copies are paginated and indexed for the evidence bundle.

Step B, Choosing Mode of Service and Lodging Filings

Select the appropriate mode based on the comparison table above. If the arrangement permits direct service for the document type in question and the recipient’s address is confirmed, this may be the fastest route. If court-to-court entrustment is required, file the application and supporting documents with the Hong Kong court registry. The registrar will transmit the request to the designated Mainland court. If serving through a law firm, confirm that the firm is authorised to carry out the function under Mainland regulations. In all cases, file any required application for leave to serve out of the jurisdiction under the Rules of the High Court, supported by an affidavit setting out the grounds.

Step C, Evidence of Service: Affidavit, CAO Attestation and Mainland Receipts

Once service is effected, compile the evidence of service immediately. This should include: the signed delivery record or acknowledgement of receipt from the Mainland recipient; the CAO attestation certificate (where applicable); any Mainland court service certificate (for the entrustment channel); certified translations of all evidence documents; and a detailed affidavit of service sworn by the person who effected or oversaw delivery. File the affidavit and supporting evidence with the Hong Kong court promptly. The affidavit must comply with the requirements of Order 65 and any applicable practice directions.

Estimated Timelines by Mode

Proof of Service: Evidence, Affidavits and CAO Certification

Establishing valid proof of service is the single most litigated aspect of cross-border service. Under the 2026 arrangement, proof of service of judicial documents between Hong Kong and Mainland China must satisfy both the arrangement’s own requirements and the Hong Kong court’s procedural standards. Insufficient evidence of service can result in applications to set aside default judgments, wasted costs and significant delay.

Affidavit of Service, Content Checklist and Sample Outline

The affidavit of service should be drafted with precision. At a minimum, the affidavit should contain:

• Identity of the deponent. Full name, address, occupation and relationship to the proceedings (e.g., solicitor with conduct, process server, CAO).
• Description of documents served. Itemised list of each document, including title, date, court reference number and number of pages.
• Mode of service used. Specify whether service was effected by court-to-court entrustment, direct delivery, law firm service or CAO-facilitated delivery, with reference to the relevant provision of the arrangement.
• Date, time and location of service. Precise details of when and where the documents were delivered to the recipient or left at the specified address.
• Identification of the recipient. Name of the person to whom the documents were handed or description of the means of delivery (e.g., registered post, courier, personal delivery).
• Exhibits. Attach as exhibits: the signed delivery record, CAO attestation certificate, any Mainland court receipt, and certified translations.

China-Appointed Attesting Officer, Sample Certificate Language and When to Instruct

A China-Appointed Attesting Officer is a Hong Kong legal practitioner appointed by the Ministry of Justice of the PRC to perform notarial acts relating to Mainland matters. In the context of cross-border service, the CAO’s role is to certify that specific documents were delivered to a named individual or entity at a confirmed address on a stated date. A typical CAO attestation certificate will include:

• The CAO’s name, appointment number and professional capacity.
• A statement that the CAO has personally witnessed or supervised the delivery, or has examined evidence of delivery that is, to the CAO’s satisfaction, sufficient to confirm effective service.
• The date, time and place of delivery.
• Identification of the documents served (by reference to title, date and court reference).
• The CAO’s signature, chop and date of certification.

Instruct a CAO at the earliest opportunity, ideally before the documents are dispatched to the Mainland, so that the attestation process can be built into the service workflow rather than arranged retrospectively.

Assessing Sufficiency of Evidence for Hong Kong Courts

Hong Kong courts will scrutinise proof of service carefully, particularly in contested matters or applications for default judgment. The likely practical standard under the 2026 arrangement is that an affidavit of service, supported by a signed delivery record and (where applicable) CAO attestation, will be treated as prima facie proof. Where service was effected through court-to-court entrustment, the return certificate from the Mainland court should ordinarily suffice. Industry observers expect that contested cases will turn on the adequacy of the delivery record and the specificity of the affidavit.

Required Attachments, Quick Reference Checklist

• Certified copies of all documents served (sealed by court registry where applicable)
• Certified Chinese translations of all English-language documents
• Signed delivery record or acknowledgement of receipt
• CAO attestation certificate (original)
• Mainland court service certificate (for entrustment channel)
• Witness statements (where a third party effected delivery)
• Covering letter and index of the evidence bundle

Practical Issues and Litigation Tactics

The procedural framework is only one part of the picture. Experienced commercial litigators need to anticipate what can go wrong and plan contingencies from the outset.

If Service Fails, Options for Re-Service, Substituted Service and Committal Risk

Where an attempt at serving documents in Mainland China is unsuccessful, because the recipient has moved, refuses delivery, or the address proves incorrect, practitioners have several options. First, attempt re-service through the same or an alternative mode permitted by the arrangement. Second, apply to the Hong Kong court for an order for substituted service under Order 65, proposing an alternative method (for example, service by email, advertisement or delivery to a last known business address). The court will need to be satisfied that reasonable efforts at direct service have been exhausted. Third, in exceptional cases, seek directions from the court on whether alternative jurisdictional routes (such as service via diplomatic channels or under any applicable bilateral treaty) may be available.

The risk of proceeding without valid service is severe: any judgment obtained may be set aside, enforcement in the Mainland may be refused, and costs thrown away.

Interim Relief and Preservation Steps While Service Is in Progress

Cross-border service inevitably takes time. During the service period, the plaintiff’s position may be at risk, assets may be dissipated, evidence destroyed or limitation periods may be approaching. Practitioners should consider applying for interim preservation measures, including Mareva injunctions (freezing orders), Anton Piller orders or asset preservation orders under the applicable Hong Kong rules. Where enforcement in the Mainland is anticipated, parallel preservation applications in the Mainland courts may also be advisable under the relevant mutual arrangement for interim measures. The key is to ensure that the application for interim relief is not undermined by the absence of effective service on the respondent, and to document the urgency supporting any ex parte applications.

Costs and Likely Disbursements

Practitioners should budget for the following categories of disbursement when planning cross-border service of judicial documents between Hong Kong and Mainland China:

• Translation costs. Certified translations of court documents into Chinese can vary significantly depending on volume and complexity.
• CAO fees. China-Appointed Attesting Officers charge professional fees for attestation work; obtain a fee estimate at the point of instruction.
• Courier and postage. International courier services for tracked, signed delivery.
• Court fees. Filing fees for applications for leave to serve out of the jurisdiction and for filing affidavits of service.
• Agent fees. If a Mainland law firm or agent is engaged to facilitate local delivery, their professional fees will apply.

Templates and Downloadable Practical Pack

To assist practitioners in implementing the 2026 arrangement efficiently, the following template documents and checklists are available. These are designed as starting points and should be adapted to the specific facts of each case and reviewed against the current text of the arrangement and the Hong Kong Judiciary’s forms and practice directions.

• Affidavit of Service (Hong Kong). Template affidavit covering all required content for proof of cross-border service, with exhibit schedule.
• CAO Attestation Certificate Template. Sample certification wording for use by China-Appointed Attesting Officers when certifying delivery of judicial documents.
• Law Firm Service Letter. Template covering letter for use by Hong Kong solicitors effecting direct service in the Mainland.
• Evidence Bundle Checklist. Itemised checklist of every document to include in the proof of service bundle filed with the Hong Kong court.
• Court Filing Cover Letter. Standard cover letter for lodging applications and evidence with the High Court registry under the 2026 arrangement.

For access to the full template pack, visit the international litigation guide on Global Law Experts or contact a qualified Hong Kong commercial litigator through the Hong Kong lawyer directory.

Conclusion and Immediate Action Checklist

The 2026 China–Hong Kong arrangement represents a watershed change in the cross-border service of judicial documents for Hong Kong commercial litigators. Practitioners who act now to update their workflows, evidence standards and template documents will be best positioned to avoid procedural challenges and serve their clients effectively. The following immediate steps are recommended:

1. Audit current cases. Identify all pending matters that involve or may involve service of judicial documents in Hong Kong or Mainland China and assess which mode of service under the 2026 arrangement is most appropriate.
2. Update internal protocols. Revise standard operating procedures, checklists and template documents to reflect the new modes, evidence requirements and timelines.
3. Instruct a CAO early. Where Mainland service is anticipated, engage a China-Appointed Attesting Officer before dispatching documents to build attestation into the service workflow.
4. Brief clients proactively. Communicate the changes, revised timelines and potential cost implications to clients and in-house legal teams at the earliest opportunity.
5. Secure specialist advice. For complex cross-border disputes, engage a commercial litigator with direct experience of the arrangement and CAO certification processes through the Global Law Experts Hong Kong lawyer directory.

For broader guidance on multi-jurisdictional disputes, consult the international commercial guide available on Global Law Experts.

Sources

1. Department of Justice (HKSAR), Arrangement on Mutual Service of Judicial Documents (official PDF)
2. HKSAR DoJ, Earlier Arrangement Summary and Related PDFs
3. Hong Kong e-Legislation, Rules of the High Court (Order 65)
4. Hong Kong Judiciary, Forms and Leaflets
5. LegCo, LC Paper No. CB(3)335/2026(05)
6. Hong Kong Government Press Release, Announcement on New Arrangement (21 April 2026)
7. DLA Piper, Hong Kong–Mainland Service of Court Documents: A Long-Awaited Upgrade (2026)