TNAG-2162-FCO40-3093-Legal-matters-between-Hong-Kong-and-China-1990 — Page 25

CONFIDENTIAL

(a) Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments (REJs);

(b)

Recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards;

(c) Services of process abroad;

(d)

Taking of evidence abroad.

HKCC 370/2

A

10

#

13

Of these, (a) and (b) are the most important. There is a large number of multilateral and bilateral agreements relating to these subjects concluded by the UK and extended to Hong Kong. These are implemented in Hong Kong law by a variety of local Ordinances and Rules of Court.

5.

Proposal for Action

HKG lawyers and CAB officials with whom I discussed this are aware of the need for separation of these agreements to be dealt with by the JLG, but responsibility for the subject has not been allocated to anyone in CAB. David Edwards is keen to initiate work in this area, and would welcome a telegram from us proposing that it be put on the agenda. May I suggest that we do just that? We could use A8 in Hong Kong telno 3401 and/or my discussions with Mr Edwards and Mr Marshall (also of AGC) as a peg on which to hang our proposal. Whether or not work starts on this now, we need to decide as a matter of tactics when and how to raise the subject formally with the Chinese.

B.

6.

HONG KONG/CHINA: New arrangements

A separate but related issue is that of the development of reciprocal judicial assistance in civil matters between Hong Kong and China both now and after 1997. Earlier this year it was reported in the press that the Chinese government were looking at the question of HK/mainland judicial links after 1997 (FCO telno 1094). In response to Peking's suggestion, endorsed by us, Perry Keller (China Law Unit, HKG) made informal enquiries during a visit to the Supreme People's Court in Peking in July. (FCO telnos 1131 and 61). On his return Mr Keller ́addressed a paper to the Political Adviser dated 10 August 1990,

in which he reported a proposal made by an SPC judge for the extension of reciprocal judicial assistance in civil matters between Hong Kong and the mainland, and that the Supreme People's Court should begin a dialogue on this subject with the Hong Kong Supreme Court of the Attorney General's Chambers

(paragraphs 16-17). Mr Keller recommended that HKG respond positively and engage cautiously in such a dialogue, taking care to restrict it to civil matters (not criminal). He warned that failure to respond might well result in loss of a valuable opportunity to influence Chinese thinking before it crystallises in an unhelpful direction (paragraphs 18-21).

ALLAAD

HKC

17

370/2

CONFIDENTIAL