CL PQTP2 打印

权威Q1 DOMICILE / MARRIAGE - Type 2
权威 Q1 居住地 / 婚姻 - 类型 2

Tom was born in Hong Kong in 1990. His father is English and his mother Swedish. Both his parents came to Hong Kong separately with the plan to work there for only a few years but after arriving they met each other and eventually married. They have told Tom “We only intended to stay in Hong Kong for a few years but we really like it here and have no plans to leave unless one of us receives a fantastic job offer that is too good to turn down.” Tom went to school in Hong Kong and grew up there though the highlight of every year was visiting his Swedish grandparents and staying on their farm in Sweden. He told his parents “I really love going to Sweden, the holidays go by so quickly.” When Tom turned 18 he went to live with his grandparents in Sweden telling his Hong Kong friends “It’s the best decision in my life for me to work in Sweden rather than to go to university. I love the Swedish way of life.”
汤姆于 1990 年出生在香港。他的父亲是英国人，母亲是瑞典人。父母双方最初分别来到香港，计划只在那里工作几年，但抵达后相遇并最终结婚。他们告诉汤姆：“我们本来只打算在香港待几年，但我们真的很喜欢这里，除非其中一人收到一个无法拒绝的极好工作机会，否则没有离开的打算。”汤姆在香港上学并在那里长大，尽管每年的亮点是去瑞典看望祖父母并住在他们的农场。他告诉父母：“我真的很喜欢去瑞典，假期过得太快了。”当汤姆 18 岁时，他去瑞典与祖父母同住，并告诉香港的朋友们：“对我来说，选择去瑞典工作而不是上大学是我人生中最好的决定。我喜欢瑞典的生活方式。”

Tom was very happy looking after the farm but in 2021 both his grandparents died. Tom began to feel increasingly lonely in Sweden without his grandparents’ presence and in 2022 he told his friends “It’s time for a radical change in my life.” Consequently, he went to Houston, Texas in the USA, where his aunt lived, and began working there for an agricultural machinery manufacturer. While in Houston, Tom entered into a relationship with Dora, who is his first cousin, and they married in Houston in 2023. Before the marriage Tom told his friends in Hong Kong “It’s the best decision I have made in my life to move to Houston. I really love it here and, even better, I have found the girl of my dreams.” Dora had lived in Maryland, USA all her life but came to work in Houston, Texas one year before her marriage to Tom. In Maryland first cousins are only permitted to marry if they have parental consent. Dora’s parents refused to give this consent. In 2024 Tom and Dora moved to Hong Kong as both Tom’s parents have health issues and Tom wanted to be close to them. Tom is actually very happy about his return to Hong Kong. He tells his parents “I had forgotten what a wonderful place it is. I think we will start a family here. You need your son to be living close to you for the rest of your lives.”
汤姆非常喜欢照看农场，但在 2021 年，他的祖父母相继去世。没有了祖父母的陪伴，汤姆在瑞典感到越来越孤独，2022 年他对朋友们说：“是时候对我的生活做出彻底改变了。”因此，他前往美国得克萨斯州休斯顿，他的姑姑住在那里，并开始为一家农业机械制造商工作。在休斯顿期间，汤姆与他的表妹多拉建立了恋爱关系，并于 2023 年在休斯顿结婚。婚前，汤姆对香港的朋友说：“搬到休斯顿是我人生中做出的最佳决定。我真的很喜欢这里，更好的是，我找到了梦中情人。”多拉一生都住在美国马里兰州，但在与汤姆结婚前一年，她来到得克萨斯州休斯顿工作。在马里兰州，表兄妹结婚必须获得父母同意，而多拉的父母拒绝给予同意。2024 年，汤姆和多拉搬到了香港，因为汤姆的父母健康状况不佳，他希望能靠近他们。汤姆对回到香港感到非常高兴，他对父母说：“我几乎忘了这里是多么美好的地方。” 我认为我们将在这里组建家庭。你需要你的儿子在你们余生中都住得离你们很近。

Advise Tom whether his marriage to Dora in Houston, Texas would be recognised as a valid marriage in Hong Kong. Please assume in your answer that in all the law districts referred to in the question first cousins can marry (except Sweden where it is prohibited) and in the case of Maryland only permitted if there is parental consent.
请就汤姆与多拉在德克萨斯州休斯顿的婚姻是否会被香港承认为有效婚姻提供建议。请假设题中提及的所有法域均允许表兄妹结婚（瑞典除外，瑞典禁止此类婚姻），而马里兰州仅在获得父母同意的情况下允许。

Sample Answer: 示范答案：

Introduction 引言

To advise Tom on whether his marriage to Dora will be recognised as valid by a Hong Kong court, a two-stage analysis is required. The marriage must satisfy the requirements of both formal validity (relating to the ceremony) and essential validity (relating to the parties' capacity to marry). For the marriage to be recognised in Hong Kong, it must be valid in respect of both aspects.
为了就汤姆与多拉的婚姻是否会被香港法院承认为有效提供建议，需要进行两阶段分析。婚姻必须同时满足形式有效性（涉及仪式）和实质有效性（涉及当事人结婚能力）的要求。该婚姻在香港被承认，必须在这两个方面均有效。

Formal Validity 形式有效性

Formal validity is governed by the law of the place where the marriage was celebrated (lex loci celebrationis). The marriage ceremony took place in Houston, Texas. Therefore, the formal requirements are governed by Texan law.
形式效力由结婚地法律（lex loci celebrationis）管辖。婚礼在德克萨斯州休斯顿举行。因此，形式要求适用德克萨斯州法律。

The issue of parental consent, which is required under Maryland law for Dora to marry, is characterised as a matter of form, not capacity. As such, the requirement for consent is determined by the
根据马里兰州法律，Dora 结婚需父母同意的问题被视为形式问题，而非能力问题。因此，同意的要求由

lex loci celebrationis (Texan law), not the law of Dora's domicile (Maryland law). The facts do not specify the requirements of Texan law, but assuming the ceremony in Houston was conducted in accordance with all local legal requirements, the marriage is considered formally valid. The fact that Dora’s parents refused to give the consent required by Maryland law is irrelevant to the formal validity of the marriage.
结婚地法律（德克萨斯州法律）决定，而非 Dora 的住所地法律（马里兰州法律）。事实未具体说明德克萨斯州法律的要求，但假设休斯顿的婚礼符合所有当地法律要求，则该婚姻被视为形式上有效。Dora 父母拒绝根据马里兰州法律给予同意，对婚姻的形式效力无关紧要。

Essential Validity (Capacity)
实质效力（能力）

Essential validity concerns the fundamental capacity of the parties to marry each other. The primary issue here is whether Tom and Dora, as first cousins, have the capacity to marry. The governing rule is the Dual Domicile (DD) Test, which requires that each party must have the capacity to marry the other under the law of their own pre-nuptial domicile.
本质有效性涉及当事人结婚的基本能力。这里的主要问题是汤姆和多拉作为表兄妹是否有能力结婚。适用的规则是双重住所（DD）测试，该测试要求双方必须根据各自婚前住所地的法律具备与对方结婚的能力。

To apply this test, it is necessary to determine the domicile of both Tom and Dora at the time of their marriage in 2023. As this is post-2009, the Domicile Ordinance 2008 applies.
要应用此测试，必须确定汤姆和多拉在 2023 年结婚时的住所。由于这是 2009 年之后，适用《2008 年住所条例》。

(a) Tom's Domicile （一）汤姆的住所

Tom's domicile must be traced chronologically from his birth in Hong Kong in 1990.
汤姆的住所必须从他 1990 年在香港出生时按时间顺序追溯。

Childhood Domicile: Tom's English father and Swedish mother came to Hong Kong with the initial plan to stay for only a few years but subsequently married and settled. Their statement, “We only intended to stay in Hong Kong for a few years but we really like it here and have no plans to leave unless one of us receives a fantastic job offer”, indicates a settled intention to remain, albeit with a vague contingency. This would likely be sufficient for them to have acquired a Hong Kong domicile of choice. As Tom grew up in Hong Kong, his childhood domicile was Hong Kong.
童年住所地：汤姆的英国父亲和瑞典母亲最初计划只在香港停留几年，但随后结婚并定居。他们的声明“我们本只打算在香港停留几年，但我们非常喜欢这里，除非其中一人获得极好的工作机会，否则无计划离开”，表明了他们有意长期居留，尽管存在模糊的应急情况。这很可能足以使他们获得香港的选择住所地。由于汤姆在香港长大，他的童年住所地为香港。
Adulthood: Upon turning 18, Tom retained his Hong Kong domicile until acquiring a new one. Under s.5 of the Domicile Ordinance, this requires both presence in a new territory and an intention to make a home there for an indefinite period.
成年后：汤姆满 18 岁后，保留其香港住所地，直到获得新的住所地。根据《住所地条例》第 5 条，这需要在新地区的实际居住以及有意在该地无限期定居。

Sweden: Tom's statement, “I love the Swedish way of life”, is an expression of affection but does not, on its own, demonstrate a clear intention to make a home there indefinitely. His subsequent departure after his grandparents' deaths further weakens this claim.
瑞典：汤姆的声明“我喜欢瑞典的生活方式”表达了感情，但单凭此不足以证明他有明确意图在瑞典无限期定居。他在祖父母去世后随即离开，更削弱了这一主张。
Houston, Texas: Similarly, his statement that he “really love[s] it here” is a statement of present happiness rather than a clear and settled intention to abandon his Hong Kong domicile.
德克萨斯州休斯顿：同样，他说“我真的很喜欢这里”是对当前幸福感的陈述，而非明确且坚定的放弃其香港住所地的意图。

Lacking evidence of the requisite intention to acquire a new domicile of choice, Tom's domicile at the time of the marriage in 2023 remained Hong Kong
缺乏取得新选择住所地所需意图的证据，汤姆在 2023 年结婚时的住所地仍为香港。

(b) Dora's Domicile （二）多拉的住所地

Dora had lived in Maryland, USA, all her life and only came to work in Houston one year before her marriage. A move for a specific purpose such as work does not, without more, demonstrate an intention to abandon one's existing domicile. There is no evidence she intended to make a home in Houston indefinitely. Therefore, her domicile at the time of the marriage remained Maryland.
多拉一生居住在美国马里兰州，结婚前一年才来到休斯顿工作。仅因工作等特定目的而搬迁，并不足以证明放弃现有住所地的意图。没有证据表明她打算在休斯顿长期定居。因此，她结婚时的住所地仍为马里兰州。

The relevant laws for capacity are those of Hong Kong and Maryland. The question provides that first-cousin marriage is permitted in all relevant jurisdictions except Sweden.
有关行为能力的相关法律为香港法和马里兰法。题目指出，除瑞典外，所有相关法域均允许表兄妹结婚。

Under Hong Kong Law (Tom's Domicile): Marriage between first cousins is permitted. Tom has capacity.
根据香港法（Tom 的住所地）：允许表兄妹结婚。Tom 具备行为能力。
Under Maryland Law (Dora's Domicile): Marriage between first cousins is permitted. Dora has capacity.
根据马里兰法（Dora 的住所地）：允许表兄妹结婚。Dora 具备行为能力。

Since both parties had the capacity to marry each other under their respective domiciliary laws, the marriage satisfies the Dual Domicile Test.
由于双方根据各自的住所地法律均具备结婚能力，该婚姻符合双重住所测试。

Overall Conclusion 总体结论

The marriage between Tom and Dora is formally valid, as it is presumed to have complied with the laws of Houston, Texas, where it was celebrated. It is also essentially valid, as it satisfies the Dual Domicile Test.
汤姆与多拉的婚姻在形式上有效，因其被推定符合其缔结地德克萨斯州休斯顿的法律。同时，该婚姻在实质上也有效，符合双重住所测试。

Therefore, Tom should be advised that his marriage to Dora would be recognised as a valid marriage by a Hong Kong court.
因此，应告知汤姆，他与多拉的婚姻将被香港法院认可为有效婚姻。

权威Q2 ENFORCEMENT - Type 2
权威 Q2 执行 - 类型 2

Amanda, who lives in Hong Kong, entered into a contract to sell her shares in a Hong Kong company to Tony in 2023. A term in the agreement provided “Any dispute arising out of this contract shall be decided by the People’s Court of Gongshu District of Hangzhou City (‘Gongshu Court’)”.
Amanda 居住在香港，于 2023 年与 Tony 签订合同，出售其在一家香港公司的股份。协议中规定：“因本合同产生的任何争议，应由杭州市拱墅区人民法院（‘拱墅法院’）管辖。”

Amanda in breach of contract refused to transfer the shares to Tony. Tony commenced proceedings against Amanda in the Gongshu Court. Amanda did not contest Tony’s claim, serving no defence and failing to appear at the court. The Gongshu Court decided that Amanda was in breach of contract and in April 2024 ordered her to transfer the shares to Tony or in the alternative pay damages of 1 million RMB. As Amanda failed to transfer the shares or pay the damages, the Gongshu Court ordered her under Article 253 of the Mainland Civil Procedure Law to pay double interest on the damages awarded.
Amanda 违约拒绝将股份转让给 Tony。Tony 在拱墅法院对 Amanda 提起诉讼。Amanda 未对 Tony 的诉讼提出异议，未提交答辩状，也未出庭。拱墅法院认定 Amanda 违约，并于 2024 年 4 月判令其将股份转让给 Tony，或替代性地支付 100 万元人民币的赔偿金。因 Amanda 未履行转让股份或支付赔偿金的义务，拱墅法院依据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第 253 条，判令其对赔偿金支付双倍利息。

As Amanda has no significant assets in the Mainland, Tony now seeks to enforce the Gongshu Court judgment in Hong Kong.
鉴于 Amanda 在内地无重大资产，Tony 现寻求在香港执行拱墅法院的判决。

Advise Tony as to his rights in relation to enforcing the Gongshu Court judgment in Hong Kong in each of the following situations:
就以下各情形，向 Tony 提供关于在香港执行拱墅法院判决的权利的建议：

at common law 根据普通法
under the Mainland Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcements) Ordinance ( Cap 597)
根据《内地判决（相互执行）条例》（第 597 章）
under the Mainland Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap 645) ‘REJ’
根据《内地民商事判决（相互执行）条例》（第 645 章）“REJ”

Sample Answer: 示范答案：

Introduction 引言

This advice addresses the rights of Tony to enforce the judgment obtained from the Gongshu Court against Amanda's assets in Hong Kong. The analysis requires consideration of the three distinct legal regimes available for the enforcement of foreign judgments: (a) the common law, (b) the Mainland Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap. 597) (“MJREO”), and (c) the new Mainland Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap. 645) (“REJ”).
本意见书涉及 Tony 在香港对从拱墅法院获得的判决执行 Amanda 资产的权利。分析需考虑三种可用于执行外国判决的不同法律制度：（a）普通法，（b）《内地判决（互认及执行）条例》（第 597 章）（“MJREO”），以及（c）新的《内地民商事判决（互认及执行）条例》（第 645 章）（“REJ”）。

(a) Enforcement at Common Law
（一）普通法下的执行

Enforcement of the Gongshu Court judgment under the common law rules is highly problematic and unlikely to succeed. To enforce a foreign judgment at common law, it must satisfy three requirements: the foreign court must have had competent jurisdiction, the judgment must be for a fixed sum of money and not a tax or penalty, and it must be final and conclusive
根据普通法规则执行拱墅法院判决存在较大困难，且成功可能性不大。根据普通法执行外国判决，必须满足三个条件：外国法院须具备管辖权，判决须为确定金额的金钱判决且非税款或罚款，且判决须为最终且具有决定性的。

Competent Jurisdiction: The Gongshu Court had competent jurisdiction in the eyes of Hong Kong law. Although Amanda was not present in the Mainland, she submitted to the court's jurisdiction by agreeing to the exclusive jurisdiction clause (EJC) in the contract.
管辖权：根据香港法律，拱墅法院具备管辖权。尽管 Amanda 未在内地出现，但她通过同意合同中的专属管辖条款（EJC）而提交了法院管辖。
Final and Conclusive: This is a major obstacle. There is significant uncertainty at common law as to whether Mainland judgments are considered "final and conclusive" due to the existence of the trial supervision system. This doubt could be fatal to the claim.
终局且具有决定性：这是一个重大障碍。由于存在审判监督制度，普通法下对于内地判决是否被视为“终局且具有决定性”存在重大不确定性。这种疑虑可能对诉讼请求构成致命影响。
Fixed Sum of Money & Not a Penalty: The common law regime only permits the enforcement of money judgments. Therefore, the order for Amanda to transfer the shares is a non-monetary order and cannot be enforced. Furthermore, the order to pay double interest would likely be regarded by a Hong Kong court as a penalty and would also be unenforceable.
固定金额且非罚金：普通法体系仅允许执行金钱判决。因此，命令阿曼达转让股份属于非金钱命令，无法执行。此外，支付双倍利息的命令很可能被香港法院视为罚金，也将无法执行。

Conclusion: Due to the uncertainty over finality and the limited scope of enforceable relief, the common law route is not a viable option for Tony.
结论：鉴于终局性的疑虑及可执行救济范围有限，普通法途径对托尼而言不可行。

(b) Enforcement under the MJREO (Cap. 597)
（二）根据《内地与香港关于相互执行民商事案件判决的安排》（第 597 章）执行

This ordinance is the correct and applicable regime for the enforcement of the monetary part of the judgment.
本条例是执行判决货币部分的正确且适用的法律制度。

Applicability: The MJREO applies to the enforcement of money judgments from commercial contracts containing an EJC in favour of the Mainland, provided the EJC was made between 1 August 2008 and 28 January 2024. The contract in this case was entered into in 2023 and contains an EJC in favour of the Gongshu Court. Therefore, the case falls squarely within the scope of the MJREO. The date of the judgment (April 2024) does not affect this.
适用范围：MJREO 适用于执行含有有利于内地的管辖权协议（EJC）的商业合同中的金钱判决，前提是该 EJC 签订于 2008 年 8 月 1 日至 2024 年 1 月 28 日期间。本案合同签订于 2023 年，且包含有利于拱墅法院的 EJC。因此，本案完全符合 MJREO 的适用范围。判决日期（2024 年 4 月）对此不产生影响。
Application: 适用：

The MJREO provides a statutory definition of "finality" in its s.6, which overcomes the common law uncertainty. Assuming the Gongshu Court is a designated court and the time for appeal has expired, the judgment will be deemed final.
MJREO 在其第 6 条中对“终局性”提供了法定定义，克服了普通法上的不确定性。假设拱墅法院为指定法院且上诉期限已过，该判决将被视为终局判决。
However, the scope of the MJREO is strictly limited to money judgments.
然而，MJREO 的适用范围严格限于金钱判决。
Therefore, Tony can apply to register and enforce the RMB 1 million damages award.
因此，Tony 可以申请登记并执行人民币 100 万元的损害赔偿裁决。
He cannot use the MJREO to enforce the non-monetary order to transfer the shares.
他不能使用 MJREO 来执行转让股份的非金钱命令。

Conclusion: Tony's most effective course of action is to use the MJREO to enforce the RMB 1 million monetary award against Amanda in Hong Kong.
结论：Tony 最有效的行动方案是在香港利用 MJREO 执行针对 Amanda 的人民币 100 万元金钱裁决。

The new REJ Ordinance is not applicable to this case.
新的《承认及执行内地法院判决条例》不适用于本案。

The REJ applies to Mainland judgments made from 29 January 2024. However, the legislation contains a critical transitional provision that explicitly excludes cases that are covered by the MJREO (Cap. 597).
《承认及执行内地法院判决条例》适用于自 2024 年 1 月 29 日起作出的内地判决。然而，该立法包含一项关键的过渡性条款，明确排除受《相互认可及执行内地法院民商事判决条例》（第 597 章）涵盖的案件。

As established in part (b), this case is covered by the MJREO because the underlying EJC was signed in 2023. Therefore, Tony cannot rely on the broader provisions of the REJ, which might otherwise have allowed for the enforcement of the non-monetary order to transfer the shares.
如第(b)部分所述，本案受《相互认可及执行内地法院民商事判决条例》管辖，因为相关的欧洲司法协助公约（EJC）于 2023 年签署。因此，Tony 不能依赖《承认及执行内地法院判决条例》更广泛的规定，否则可能允许执行转让股份的非金钱性命令。

Q3: REJ (Cap. 645) 问题三：REJ（第 645 章）

HK Components Ltd (“HKC”) 是一家在香港注册成立的公司，专门生产高端电子产品。2023年8月，HKC与Shenzhen Precision Machinery (“SPM”)，一家在深圳注册成立的公司，签订了一份买卖合同。根据合同，SPM将为HKC量身定做一套价值500万人民币的自动化生产线设备。合同的谈判、签署和履行（包括设备的制造、调试和交付）全部在深圳进行。合同中没有任何关于法律选择或司法管辖权的条款。

设备交付后，HKC支付了400万人民币，但声称设备存在严重质量问题，拒绝支付剩下的100万人民币尾款。

由于协商未果，HKC于2025年2月首先在香港高等法院对SPM提起了违约诉讼，要求其赔偿损失。

在收到香港的传票后，SPM于2025年4月，也在深圳的指定人民法院对HKC提起了诉讼，追讨剩余的100万人民币货款。HKC在深圳的诉讼中进行了积极的抗辩，并提出了关于设备质量问题的反诉。

由于内地法院的审理程序较快，深圳法院于2025年10月作出了一份终局判决。判决命令：

HKC须向SPM支付剩余货款100万人民币。

SPM须在30天内向HKC交付一套符合合同标准的替换核心模组，以修复设备的质量问题。

SPM在香港拥有一个存有大量资金的银行账户。HKC现在希望能在香港强制执行上述判决的第(2)项，即要求SPM交付替换核心模zutsu

请为 HKC 提供法律意见，分析其是否有权以及应如何利用香港的法律程序，来执行深圳法院判决中对自己有利的部分（即要求SPM交付替换核心模组的命令）。你的分析必须详细阐述应适用哪个法例，以及任何一方可能提出的主要法律论点。

Sample Answer: 示范答案：

Introduction 引言

This advice addresses whether HK Components Ltd (“HKC”) can enforce the part of the Shenzhen court judgment ordering Shenzhen Precision Machinery (“SPM”) to deliver replacement parts. The analysis will first determine the applicable legal regime for enforcing the Mainland judgment and then assess the likelihood of success under that regime, considering any potential arguments SPM might raise.
本意见书讨论香港零件有限公司（“HKC”）是否可以执行深圳法院判决中关于深圳精密机械（“SPM”）交付替换零件的部分。分析将首先确定适用于执行内地判决的法律制度，然后评估在该制度下成功的可能性，同时考虑 SPM 可能提出的任何抗辩理由。

Determining the Applicable Enforcement Regime
确定适用的执行制度

There are three potential regimes for enforcing a Mainland judgment in Hong Kong.
在香港执行内地判决有三种可能的制度。

The common law route is problematic due to the uncertainty over whether a Mainland judgment is considered “final and conclusive”.
普通法途径存在问题，因为无法确定内地判决是否被视为“最终且具有决定性”。
The Mainland Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap. 597) (“MJREO”) is inapplicable because the contract does not contain an Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause (EJC) in favour of the Mainland.
《内地判决（相互执行）条例》（第 597 章）（“MJREO”）不适用，因为合同中未包含有利于内地的专属管辖条款（EJC）。
Therefore, the sole applicable statutory regime is the Mainland Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap. 645) (“REJ”). The judgment was made in October 2025, which is after the REJ's commencement date of 29 January 2024, and the case is not one covered by the MJREO.
因此，唯一适用的法定制度是《内地民商事案件判决（相互执行）条例》（第 645 章）（“REJ”）。该判决作出于 2025 年 10 月，晚于 REJ 于 2024 年 1 月 29 日的生效日期，且该案件不属于 MJREO 涵盖的范围。

Enforceability under the REJ (Cap. 645)
根据 REJ（第 645 章）的可执行性

Prima facie, the judgment appears to meet the requirements for registration and enforcement under the REJ.
初步看来，该判决符合《REJ》下的注册和执行要求。

Enforceable Relief: A key feature of the REJ is that it allows for the enforcement of non-money judgments. The order for SPM to deliver replacement core modules is an order for the "performance of an act" and therefore falls within the scope of enforceable relief under the new ordinance.
可执行的救济：REJ 的一个关键特征是允许执行非金钱判决。要求 SPM 交付替换核心模块的命令属于“履行某项行为”的命令，因此属于新条例下可执行救济的范围。
Jurisdictional Requirement: The REJ does not require an EJC but instead a "sufficient connection with the Mainland" under s.23. The facts state that the entire performance of the contract, including manufacture and delivery, took place in Shenzhen. This satisfies the jurisdictional gateway under s.23(3)(c) of the REJ, which provides that there is a sufficient connection if the "place of performance of the contract was in the Mainland".
管辖权要求：《REJ》不要求提供最终判决证书（EJC），而是根据第 23 条要求与内地有“足够联系”。事实陈述显示，合同的全部履行，包括制造和交付，均在深圳进行。这满足了《REJ》第 23(3)(c)条规定的管辖权门槛，该条款规定若“合同履行地在内地”，则视为有足够联系。

Based on these points, HKC has a basis to apply for registration of the Shenzhen judgment in Hong Kong. However, SPM has a very powerful argument to have the registration set aside.
基于以上几点，HKC 有理由申请在香港注册深圳判决。然而，SPM 有非常有力的理由申请撤销该注册。

SPM's Defence: The "First-in-Time" Rule for Parallel Proceedings
SPM 的辩护：平行诉讼的“先到先得”规则

SPM is likely to successfully apply to have the registration of the judgment set aside under s.22 of the REJ.
SPM 很可能成功申请根据《承认与执行外国法院判决条例》第 22 条撤销判决的注册。

The Legal Basis: The REJ introduced a clear mechanism to prevent parallel proceedings.
法律依据：《承认与执行外国法院判决条例》引入了防止平行诉讼的明确机制。
Section 22(e) of the REJ provides that the Hong Kong court must set aside a registered Mainland judgment if the Mainland proceedings were instituted after proceedings between the same parties and on the same cause of action had already been brought in Hong Kong.
《承认与执行外国法院判决条例》第 22(e)条规定，如果内地诉讼是在香港已就同一当事人及同一诉讼请求提起诉讼后才开始的，香港法院必须撤销已注册的内地判决。
Application to the Facts:
事实适用：

HKC initiated its proceedings against SPM in the Hong Kong High Court in February 2025.
HKC 于 2025 年 2 月在香港高等法院对 SPM 提起诉讼。
SPM initiated its proceedings against HKC in the Shenzhen court in April 2025.
SPM 于 2025 年 4 月在深圳法院对 HKC 提起诉讼。
Clearly, the Mainland proceedings began after the Hong Kong proceedings were already underway.
显然，大陆诉讼是在香港诉讼已经开始之后才启动的。

Conclusion on the Defence: This "first-in-time" rule is a mandatory ground for setting aside registration. SPM has a complete defence to the enforcement of the Shenzhen judgment in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong court would be obliged to set aside the registration.
关于抗辩的结论：该“先到先得”规则是撤销登记的强制性理由。SPM 对深圳判决在香港的执行拥有完全抗辩权。香港法院有义务撤销该登记。

Overall Conclusion and Advice to HKC
总体结论及对 HKC 的建议

HKC should be advised that while the new REJ ordinance (Cap. 645) provides the theoretical framework to enforce the non-monetary part of the Shenzhen judgment, the enforcement action is almost certain to fail.
应告知 HKC，尽管新的《承认及执行外国及内地法院判决条例》（第 645 章）为执行深圳判决中的非金钱部分提供了理论框架，但执行行动几乎肯定会失败。

The fact that HKC initiated proceedings in Hong Kong before SPM began its action in Shenzhen triggers the mandatory "first-in-time" rule under s.22(e) of the REJ. This provides SPM with a conclusive ground to have the registration of the Mainland judgment set aside.
HKC 在 SPM 于深圳提起诉讼之前已在香港启动诉讼程序，这触发了《承认及执行外国及内地法院判决条例》第 22(e)条规定的强制性“先到先得”规则。该规则为 SPM 提供了确凿理由，要求撤销内地判决的登记。

Therefore, HKC should be advised not to expend resources on trying to enforce the Shenzhen judgment in Hong Kong. Instead, its legal strategy should be to focus entirely on pursuing its original lawsuit, which is currently and validly before the Hong Kong High Court, to its conclusion.
因此，应建议 HKC 不要在香港耗费资源尝试执行深圳判决。相反，其法律策略应完全专注于推进其原始诉讼，该诉讼目前有效地在香港高等法院审理，直至结案。