Suzhou Haishun Investment Management Co Ltd v Yue’e Zhao [2019] VSC 110 – Application for Summary Judgment

Legal Principles

The court outlined the test for summary judgment under Victorian law, which is whether the respondent has a “real” as opposed to “fanciful” chance of success. The onus is on the defendant to establish any defence, while the plaintiff must show summary judgment should be granted. For enforcing foreign judgments, the plaintiff must prove the foreign court had jurisdiction, the judgment was final, there is identity of parties, and it was for a fixed debt. Defences include that enforcement would be contrary to public policy, the judgment was obtained by fraud, it is penal in nature, or there was a denial of natural justice.

Reasonings

The court found Ms Zhao contractually submitted to the jurisdiction of the Chinese court through clauses in the loan agreements. Evidence showed Ms Zhao was aware of the Chinese proceedings, including attendance by a Bolun representative. Text messages indicated Ms Zhao accepted her indebtedness. The court rejected Ms Zhao’s claim of duress in signing backdated documents as unconvincing and a recent invention. Ms Zhao made no attempt to appeal the Chinese judgments despite being aware of them. Her allegations of corruption in Chinese courts were unsupported by evidence.

Decision

The court granted summary judgment, finding Ms Zhao had no real prospects of success in defending the claim. Key reasons included her contractual submission to Chinese jurisdiction, evidence she was aware of the proceedings, text messages acknowledging the debt, lack of credible evidence for her duress claim, and failure to appeal the judgments in China. The court found no denial of natural justice or basis to refuse enforcement on public policy grounds. While part of the interest awarded may be penal, this could be severed from the judgment if necessary.