Background
This case involves an appeal of an Associate Justice’s decision to grant summary judgment in favour of Mr Wu against Mr Yin. Mr Wu, a Chinese national, claimed he entered a foreign exchange agreement with Mr Yin in 2017, transferring RMB to Mr Yin in exchange for USD. Mr Wu alleged Mr Yin failed to transfer the full USD amount. Mr Wu obtained a judgment against Mr Yin in a Chinese court and sought to enforce it in Australia.
Summary Judgment Application
Mr Wu applied for summary judgment on the grounds that Mr Yin’s defence had no real prospect of success. The Associate Justice granted summary judgment in Mr Wu’s favour. Mr Yin appealed this decision.
Grounds of Appeal
Mr Yin’s appeal was based on several grounds: 1) That he did not previously know Mr Wu; 2) The admissibility of Chinese bank records; 3) His claim that his bank accounts were frozen; 4) His claim he was not accorded natural justice in the Chinese proceedings; 5) That the case should proceed to trial under s 64 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic).
Court’s Analysis
The court found no error in the Associate Justice’s decision on any of the grounds. The court held that Mr Yin failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his defences beyond “bare assertions”. The Chinese bank records were deemed admissible as business records. The court found no basis to conclude Mr Yin was denied natural justice in the Chinese proceedings.
Conclusion
The court dismissed Mr Yin’s appeal, upholding the Associate Justice’s decision to grant summary judgment in Mr Wu’s favour. The court found no error in the Associate Justice’s reasoning or application of legal principles regarding summary judgment and enforcement of foreign judgments.
