Taking a Hong Kong Judgment to Macau: Two Courts, Six Conditions, One Lawyer

Is there a Hong Kong–Macau arrangement for judgments?

No, and both sides say so. The Department of Justice's page Arrangements with the Macao SAR lists three arrangements in total, and one of them concerns the transfer of sentenced persons. Macau's Public Prosecutions Office, in a page revised on 29 September 2026, states that Macau and Hong Kong have signed two bilateral arrangements in civil and commercial matters, and that where they do not apply, Macau handles requests from Hong Kong under its Civil Procedure Code.

Readers often assume otherwise because Macau has such an arrangement with the Mainland, and Hong Kong has its own with the Mainland, in force since 29 January 2024. Neither reaches between the two SARs.

How does a Hong Kong judgment take effect in Macau?

Through a special action called review and confirmation (審查及確認, revisão e confirmação). Article 1199 of Macau's Civil Procedure Code says a decision on private rights given by a court outside the Macau SAR takes effect in Macau only after it has been reviewed and confirmed, unless a convention or judicial assistance agreement says otherwise; for Hong Kong judgments, none does. Article 680 applies the same rule to enforcement: such a decision can be the basis of enforcement only once confirmed.

The action is filed in the Court of Second Instance (中級法院), not the court that hears small claims: article 169 lists the review and confirmation of decisions from outside Macau as one of that court's own categories of case.

That has a cost consequence. Article 74(1)(b) makes a lawyer compulsory in actions brought before a higher court, so the self-represented route that works at Macau's small claims court is not available here. Neither the Code nor the Courts' website publishes a typical cost or duration for these cases.

What six conditions does Macau check?

Article 1200 lists them. The court checks two on its own initiative in every case, (a) and (f), and refuses confirmation if the file shows that any of the others is missing (article 1204).

• (a) Authentic and clear. No doubt about the authenticity of the document containing the judgment, or about what it decides.
• (b) Final where it was given. The decision has become final (transitado) under Hong Kong law. Obtain a sealed copy and evidence that no appeal is pending.
• (c) Proper jurisdiction. The Hong Kong court did not obtain jurisdiction by evading the law, and the matter is not one reserved exclusively to Macau's courts.
• (d) No clash with a Macau case. No defence that the same case is already pending, or already decided, in Macau, unless the Hong Kong court was seised first.
• (e) A fair process. The defendant was duly summoned under Hong Kong law, and both sides were heard on equal terms. A judgment entered in default is where this is tested hardest.
• (f) Public order. Confirming it would not produce a result manifestly incompatible with Macau's public order.

How does the confirmation case run?

The procedure is short on paper and is set out in articles 1201 to 1205.

Can the debtor fight the review?

Only on limited grounds. Article 1202 lets the debtor oppose confirmation by showing that one of the six conditions is missing, or by relying on three of the grounds on which a final Macau decision could itself be reopened (article 653(a), (c) and (g)): that the judgment was procured through a judge's corruption, that a document the debtor could not use at the time would on its own change the result, or that it conflicts with an earlier final decision between the same parties. The Macau court does not retry the debt.

One ground is specific to residents. If the judgment was given against a Macau resident, and Macau's own conflict-of-laws rules say Macau law should have decided the dispute, the resident may also argue that Macau law would have produced a more favourable result for them (article 1202(2)). A Hong Kong creditor suing a Macau resident on a contract governed by Macau law should expect that argument.

Going the other way: a Macau judgment in Hong Kong

Hong Kong has a simple registration scheme for some foreign judgments, under the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap. 319). It covers only the places listed in its Order (Cap. 319A), which include Australia, India, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, France, Germany and Italy. Macau is not listed. Mainland judgments have their own regime (Cap. 645), which does not reach Macau either.

What remains is the common-law action. The Department of Justice explains that a foreign judgment can itself be sued on as a debt, if it is final and conclusive on the merits, for a fixed sum, and from a court that was competent by Hong Kong's rules. The defendant can resist on lack of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, fraud or public policy. Reciprocity is not required, and a judgment from a civil-law system such as Macau's qualifies.

In practice that is a new Hong Kong claim, pleaded on the Macau judgment rather than on the original debt, so the arguments about whether the money was owed are not reopened unless one of those defences applies.

Should you sue in Macau instead?

Often, yes. If the debtor lives in Macau and the money is in Macau, a Hong Kong judgment adds a second, lawyer-only action before you can touch anything. Suing in Macau from the start avoids it.

• Suing in Hong Kong still makes sense where the debtor also has assets in Hong Kong, where the contract gives Hong Kong courts jurisdiction, or where your witnesses and documents are all in English and in Hong Kong.
• An arbitration clause changes the picture. Awards, unlike judgments, do have a Hong Kong–Macau arrangement, signed in 2013. For regular business with Macau counterparties, that is worth considering when the contract is written.

Before you start

The route is long enough that the first question is whether it is worth taking at all.

• Find the assets first. Property, a salary, a bank account, a business. If there is nothing in Macau, confirmation there buys nothing.
• Check finality and service in Hong Kong. A judgment still under appeal, or one where service cannot be proved, is the most common reason to wait.
• Budget for two lawyers' worth of steps if you go from Hong Kong to Macau: the confirmation in the Court of Second Instance and, if the debtor opposes, the enforcement above MOP 100,000 (art. 74(1)(d)).
• Rehearse the story. Whichever court you end up in, you will have to explain the debt in dates and documents. A Trial AI mock hearing shows where that story has gaps; it is preparation, not legal advice.