Key Facts:
This case involves an application for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment at common law. The People’s Court of Jiangsu Nantong Chongchuan District in China issued a judgment on 6 April 2017, ordering the defendants to repay a loan of RMB ¥3,900,000 to the plaintiff, Jian Liu. The original lender assigned the loan to Liu, and the defendants, a married couple, were found jointly liable. A third defendant, a corporation, guaranteed the loan. The Chinese court issued a default judgment due to the defendants’ absence.
The judgment also included court fees of RMB ¥38,698 and accrued interest from 4 March 2017 as per the People’s Bank of China rate. Given that the Chinese court is not designated a superior court under Australia’s Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth), registration of the judgment was not feasible under statutory procedures, leading the plaintiff to seek common law enforcement.
Issues:
1. Whether a judgment given and delivered in the Chinese court could be recognized and enforced at common law in Victoria.
2. Whether this case could meet the requirement set for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Australia.
3. Whether the Chinese court exercised sufficient jurisdiction over the defendants.
Legal Principles Applied:
The case applied principles from Emanuel v Symon [1908] 1 KB 302, outlining five grounds for enforcing a foreign judgment in personam, including (1) where the defendant is a subject of the foreign country in which the judgment has been obtained; (2) where he was resident in the foreign country when the action began; (3) where the defendant in the character of plaintiff has selected the forum in which he is afterwards sued; (4) where he has voluntarily appeared; and (5) where he has contracted to submit himself to the forum in which the judgment was obtained. Associate Justice Mukhtar referenced Nygh’s Conflict of Laws in Australia and Australian Private International Law for guidance on jurisdiction and active citizenship.
Decision:
The court found that the Chinese court possessed “international jurisdiction” over the defendants, recognizing that they were natural citizens of China, held Chinese passports, and had substantial activities in China. Australian conflict of laws principles were satisfied, as the judgment was final, involved identical parties, and concerned a fixed sum.
Conclusion:
The court granted the application, recognizing and enforcing the Chinese judgment at common law, as the jurisdictional competence of the Chinese court and other requirements for enforcement were met.
Consultation with Specialized Lawyers
Si Zhang
Senior Associate, Notary Public
Si specializes in legal provisions in all areas of business, corporate and property matters, in terms of acquisitions/sales, property, corporate, commercial, industrial and retail leasing, as well as off-the-plan properties, commercial development, foreign investment, joint ventures, providing professional and pertinent advice to clients within these areas.
Abraham Sun
Principal Solicitor
As the Principal Solicitor, Abraham has been working with numerous clients including listed companies, state-owned enterprises, ultra-high-net-worth clients, and investment banks. Customers in various industries including Australian and Chinese companies and individual investors, had achieved considerable economic benefits with his professional legal advice.
Latest Posts：
- Privacy Challenges in the AI Era: Is Your Information Truly Secure?
- 5% Deposit Scheme Explained: New Opportunities for First Home Buyers
- Zong Fuli Steps Down: The Succession Challenge for Private Enterprises
- “I want a divorce, but he’s in prison overseas” – Wang Nuannuan’s cross-border divorce dilemma
- What is International Public Notary? A Practical Guide for Seamless Cross-Border Document Circulation
- Experiencing Domestic Violence or Harassment? Criminal Lawyers Show You How to Effectively Use AVO to Respond