What
Ordinance also apparently covers (in S.6) reciprocal enforcement between Hong Kong and other parts of the Commonwealth. Why should not the Hong Kong Ordinance simply continue in force after 1997 without amendment? happened in the case of those territories listed in the Schedule to the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments (Administration of
Act 1920, Part II) (Consolidation) Order 1984 (S.I.1984/129) (as amended) that are now independent? Did the continuation of the reciprocal enforcement arrangements between us and them after independence depend on the negotiation of an agreement to underpin them?
Justice
In the UK, the regime established by Part II of the 1920 Act was improved on by the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 and provision was made then that no new reciprocal enforcement arrangements could be made thereafter under the 1920 Act. The theory was that even Commonwealth countries should be brought under the improved 1933 Act regime. In fact, as can be seen from the size of the Schedule for the 1984 Order, the 1920 Act regime still, 60 years after the enactment of the 1933 Act, covers a great many countries and territories. The 1933 Act regime does apply to a few Commonwealth countries and territories (eg the Australian capital territory, Pakistan, India, Canada and some of the Channel Islands and Isle of Man) but for the most part it applies to non-Commonwealth countries. I have not checked all the Orders made under the 1933 Act but the general rule seems to be that they are based on agreements between the countries concerned, although there is no actual requirement in the 1933 Act that that should be the case. The requirement is simply that (in the words of s.1(1) of the Act) Her Majesty should be satisfied that substantial reciprocity of treatment will be assured as regards the enforcement in the other country of certain judgments given in certain courts of the UK. If we wished to move to a 1933 Act regime with Hong Kong, therefore, I think that precedent (even if not strict law) would require us to enter into some kind of convention; and maybe that
and maybe that is something for
for the future. But meanwhile, as I have indicated, I see no reason prima facie why the 1920 Act regime between the UK and Hong Kong and between Hong Kong and other Commonwealth territories should not continue after 1997 without further action being required.
As to reciprocal enforcement between Hong Kong and other countries which are not in the Commonwealth, these are presumably covered by Hong Kong's equivalent of the 1933 Act, ie the Foreign
Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (cap.319); and I assume, but again I have not checked, that they are based on extensions to Hong Kong of agreements made by the UK with other countries for the purposes of the 1933 Act. Those extensions to Hong Kong will presumably cease to have effect in 1997, but it is (to me at least) an open question whether the list of countries with which Hong Kong has reciprocal arrangements under that Ordinance would likewise automatically cease to have effect.