三河宏祥混凝土有限公司 v. Zhang Yongtie (張永鐵) (also known as 張永鉄)

On 3 August 2026, Deputy High Court Judge Jason Pow SC handed down judgment in HCA 873/2022, 三河宏祥混凝土有限公司 v Zhang Yongtie, granting the Plaintiff common law enforcement of two PRC money judgments and entering judgment for RMB 22,855,123.54 plus interest at 15.4% p.a. Mr James Man, instructed by Anthony Siu & Co, acted for the successful Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff, a PRC concrete company, lent the Defendant, a PRC national with a Hong Kong identity card and residential address, RMB 10 million in February 2013 and RMB 5 million in June 2013. After the Defendant defaulted, the Sanhe People's Court in Hebei gave judgment in December 2020 for the full principal sums plus 15.4% interest. Partial enforcement in the PRC recovered only RMB 1,323,891.30, leaving RMB 22,855,123.54 outstanding as at the Writ. The Plaintiff brought this common law enforcement action to recover the balance in Hong Kong.

The sole live issue was whether the PRC judgments were "final and conclusive" within the meaning of element (iv) in Jiang Xi An Fa Da Wine Co Ltd v Zhan King [2019] HKCFI 2411, applying the framework in Sunsco International Holdings Ltd v Lin Chunrong [2025] HKCFI 5238. The Defendant relied on the existence of retrial applications he had filed in the PRC; the Court had to assess the likelihood of a retrial being ordered.

The Court held that the PRC judgments are final and conclusive: (1) the Defendant filed retrial applications in September 2022 but withdrew them on 30 December 2022, then pursued appeals which were deemed withdrawn for non-payment of fees; the PRC court had effectively signalled that retrial was not warranted (§23(2)); (2) any fresh retrial application based on the same "new evidence" would be time-barred under Article 216 of the Civil Procedure Law, which is mandatory ("應當"), and the evidence in fact fails the Article 386 definition of "new evidence" because it was already adduced before the Sanhe Court and duly considered (§§30, 34); (3) Avenues 2 and 3 for retrial are unavailing, because the Article 220 conditions for procuratorial supervision are not met, and Article 21 of the Supreme People's Court Judicial Interpretation restricts court-initiated retrial to cases affecting national or public interest, which this commercial dispute is not (§§36, 40); (4) the Defendant's late attempt to introduce "New Retrial Applications Papers" filed three months before trial was rejected as a backdoor attempt to influence the Court without proper application, and the Court proceeded on the existing pleadings (§§21, 22); (5) the Defendant's expert Mr Xi, whose firm had acted for the Defendant and his companies in the PRC proceedings, was found evasive and lacking independence, whereas Professor Ma for the Plaintiff was straightforward and well-supported by primary sources (§§25, 26).

The Defendant's conduct in withdrawing the retrial applications, lodging appeals, failing to pay appeal fees, and then filing new retrial applications on the eve of trial without seeking leave to amend, was characterised as a "disingenuous tactical manoeuvre" (§21). Costs were ordered nisi on a party-and-party basis with certificate for counsel.

For practitioners, the case is a useful roadmap on resisting enforcement of PRC judgments where the judgment debtor manipulates retrial proceedings. A defendant who withdraws a retrial application, lets an appeal lapse for non-payment of fees, and then surfaces new retrial filings shortly before trial without seeking leave to amend will struggle to displace finality. Plaintiffs should plead and prove the procedural history of the retrial and appeal processes in the PRC, and lead expert evidence on the mandatory six-month time limit and the Article 386 definition of "new evidence".