Service Of Process In Cross-Border Litigation: The Hague Service Convention And Practice In China, Hong Kong And The Cayman Islands (Part 2)

In Part 1, we examined the rules governing service of process under the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Unified Patent Court (UPC) regime, highlighting how the two judicial traditions approach service of process differently. Building on that analysis, this article examines the institutional framework of the Hague Service Convention¹ and considers service practices in three jurisdictions: Mainland China, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the Cayman Islands.

These three jurisdictions are particularly relevant in practice. Mainland China is home to the operating entities of most Chinese enterprises. As a long-standing bridge between Mainland China and international capital markets, Hong Kong is a preferred jurisdiction for many Chinese companies to establish holding vehicles or regional headquarters. The Cayman Islands, meanwhile, is routinely used by Chinese enterprises to establish VIE (Variable Interest Entity) or red-chip structures in connection with U.S. and Hong Kong IPOs, thanks to their established offshore corporate framework and business-friendly regulatory environment. Put simply, these three jurisdictions cover the principal offshore structures used by Chinese companies expanding overseas. It is therefore important for such businesses to understand the service-of-process rules applicable in each jurisdiction.

1. Overview of the Hague Service Convention and State Reservations

Drafted in 1965, the Hague Service Convention has become one of the most important international instruments governing the cross-border service of judicial documents. It currently has 84 contracting states, including China, the United States, the United Kingdom and EU Member States. In cross-border civil litigation, a sovereign state's judicial authority is generally confined to its own territory. When a claimant seeks to serve proceedings on a defendant located in another country, the issue involves not merely the delivery of documents, but also respect for the receiving state's judicial sovereignty. Failure to observe this principle may result in ineffective service, difficulties in enforcing the resulting judgment, and even diplomatic friction.

To address these challenges, the Convention establishes a Central Authority mechanism. Each contracting state designates a Central Authority, such as the U.S. Department of Justice or China's Ministry of Justice, to receive and process incoming requests for service. By providing an institutional mechanism for cross-border service and replacing the slower traditional letters rogatory process, the Convention seeks to respect the sovereignty of the receiving state while improving procedural efficiency.

 (I) Standard Service Procedure under the Hague Service Convention

Under the standard procedure, a court or judicial officer in the requesting state forwards a Request for Service, together with the documents to be served, to the Central Authority of the destination state. The Central Authority reviews the request for compliance with the Convention's formal requirements, including translation and payment of any applicable fees. It then effects service in accordance with its domestic law (Article 5 of the Convention), or uses a special method requested by the claimant, provided that such method is not incompatible with the domestic law of the receiving state.

For example, where a defendant in Mainland China is sued in a U.S. court, the claimant submits the service request to China's Ministry of Justice, which then refers the request to the competent local people's court for service. The process may take six to twelve months. Even so, the Convention route represents a significant improvement over service through traditional diplomatic channels. In recent years, turnaround times have reportedly shortened, with some requests being completed within two to three months in practice.

Once service has been completed, the Central Authority issues a Certificate of Service confirming that service was effected or, where applicable, setting out the reasons for failure. Where service cannot be completed through the Convention route, a claimant may ask the U.S. court to authorize alternative service under FRCP 4(f)(3). If the court grants such relief, the claimant may effect service in the manner authorized by the court.

 (II) State Reservations to Optional Service Methods under the Convention

The optional service mechanisms provided by the Convention offer procedural flexibility, but also implicate sensitive questions of national sovereignty. Article 8(1) permits a contracting state to serve judicial documents abroad through its diplomatic or consular agents, without the use of coercive measures. China has lodged a reservation under this provision: service under Article 8(1) may be effected within China only in respect of nationals of the state in which the documents originate. In practical terms, foreign consular officials in Mainland China may use this method only to serve their own nationals, rather than Chinese citizens or nationals of third countries.

Article 10 has attracted objections from a number of contracting states. Where the destination state has not objected, Article 10 permits parties to bypass the Central Authority and use alternative channels of service:

• Article 10(a): the direct transmission of judicial documents to persons abroad by postal channels;
• Article 10(b): judicial officers, officials or other competent persons of the requesting state may effect service directly through the corresponding persons in the destination state;
• Article 10(c): any interested person in judicial proceedings may effect service directly through judicial officers, officials or other competent persons in the destination state.

China objects to the entirety of Article 10. This position reflects China's emphasis on judicial sovereignty and its preference for cross-border service to be conducted through designated judicial or governmental channels. U.S. courts may rely on Article 10 to streamline proceedings in jurisdictions that have not objected to the relevant provisions. Where the destination state has maintained an objection, however, U.S. courts must take that position into account. Failure to do so may result in ineffective service and, potentially, difficulties in obtaining recognition and enforcement of the resulting judgment in that jurisdiction.

2. Service Practice for Entities in Mainland China, Hong Kong SAR and the Cayman Islands

Having outlined the general framework of the Convention, we now turn to jurisdiction-specific practice. The three jurisdictions take notably different approaches to cross-border service. Mainland China adopts a more formal approach centered on judicial sovereignty, while Hong Kong SAR and the Cayman Islands, as common-law jurisdictions, provide greater procedural flexibility in certain circumstances.

 (I) Mainland China

Service in Mainland China is governed by the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and is implemented in accordance with the Hague Service Convention. Pursuant to the Convention, China's Ministry of Justice acts as the designated Central Authority, receiving foreign requests for service and referring them to the competent local people's courts for service. Consistent with China's declarations to the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) and established practice, documents to be served must be accompanied by translations into simplified Chinese.

As noted above, China objects to the entirety of Article 10 of the Convention. China's position therefore excludes service by post, private engagement of local agents by foreign counsel, and other methods that circumvent the Central Authority. Using such channels instead may render service ineffective. Judgments based on defective service may, in turn, face difficulties in obtaining recognition and enforcement in Mainland China.²

 (II) Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

As a common-law jurisdiction, Hong Kong's service regime is governed by the Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A), in particular Orders 10 and 11, and operates within the framework of the Hague Service Convention. Hong Kong does not object to Article 10(a), giving claimants greater flexibility in choosing the method of service. In addition to service through the Central Authority (the Chief Secretary for Administration), claimants may serve relevant judicial documents directly by registered post at a Hong Kong company's registered office.

Hong Kong has entered partial reservations in respect of Articles 10(b) and 10(c). Private service may be effected through local Hong Kong solicitors, while service through the official channel must proceed through the designated authorities.

In U.S. proceedings against Hong Kong-based defendants, claimants may opt for postal service to expedite the proceedings. Where a defendant's address cannot be ascertained, a court may authorize alternative service, including service by email. In the recent case of Shenzhen Chunyan Technology Co. Ltd. v. Hong Kong Xingtai International Trade Co. Limited (W.D. Wash. Jan. 8, 2026), the U.S. court applied the standard established in Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int'l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002). The court found that the Convention did not apply because the defendant's address could not be ascertained, consistent with Article 1's proviso that the Convention "shall not apply where the address of the person to be served with the document is not known", and, applying the Rio Properties standard, authorized service by email under Rule 4(f)(3).

Chinese enterprises with holding companies in Hong Kong should be mindful of this flexibility, which may allow service to be effected considerably more quickly. Overall, Hong Kong's rules seek to balance procedural efficiency with sovereignty considerations and can facilitate cross-border proceedings. Defendants and their counsel should nevertheless respond promptly to any documents or notices relating to service to avoid adverse procedural consequences.

 (III) Cayman Islands

As a British Overseas Territory, the Cayman Islands follows common-law principles and is subject to the Hague Service Convention by virtue of its extension by the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom does not object to Article 10(a). Claimants may therefore serve documents by registered post directly at a Cayman company's registered office, providing considerable procedural flexibility.

As with Hong Kong, the United Kingdom has entered partial reservations in respect of Articles 10(b) and 10(c). Private service may be effected through local Cayman counsel, while service through the official channel must proceed through the prescribed authorities.

Chinese enterprises with Cayman-incorporated entities should be aware that private service through local counsel can be effected expeditiously. Chinese companies should therefore put appropriate response procedures in place in advance.

3. Conclusion

Many Chinese enterprises establish holding vehicles in Hong Kong or the Cayman Islands to facilitate financing, IPOs and overseas business operations. Both are common-law jurisdictions and have not objected to Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention, which concerns service by post. This means that, where the requirements for postal service are satisfied, a foreign claimant may be able to effect service by sending the relevant judicial documents by post to a company's registered office, without requiring a court official to attend the registered office in person.

Where a registered office is maintained by a third-party corporate service provider, a failure by the provider to promptly forward legal notices to the company's actual decision-makers may result in service being completed without the company's knowledge, potentially leading to a default judgment.

Companies should therefore:

• Periodically verify that their registered agents maintain reliable procedures for forwarding legal documents;
• Expressly set out in agreements with registered agents their obligations to notify the company of service documents and the applicable response timeframes;
• Where appropriate, designate in-house legal personnel or external counsel as alternative points of contact to ensure that litigation-related notices reach the relevant decision-makers without delay.

Footnotes

1. Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, Nov. 15, 1965, 20 U.S.T. 361, 658 U.N.T.S. 163 [hereinafter Hague Service Convention].

2. Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo Minshi Susong Fa (中华人民共和国民事诉讼法) [Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China] (promulgated by the Standing Comm. Nat'l People's Cong., Sept. 1, 2023, effective Jan. 1, 2024) 300(2) (China).