How to Enforce a Foreign Judgment in the Supreme Court of NSW: A Case Study on Chinese Court Judgments

Feb 10, 2025 | Publication

In a recent legal proceeding before the Supreme Court of New South Wales, the Court granted leave for Yangpu Huigu Pharmaceutical Corporation Limited (the plaintiff) to enforce a Chinese judgment against Gaogeng He (the defendant). This case provides valuable insights into the procedural and legal requirements for enforcing foreign judgments in Australia.

Background of the Case

The judgment in question, dated 30 November 2022, was issued by the First Intermediate People’s Court of Hainan Province in the People’s Republic of China. The judgment pertained to the recovery of RMB 10,705,796.08, including principal loans, interest, travel expenses, and court acceptance fees. The defendant, a guarantor of the loan, had actively participated in the original Chinese proceedings but failed to appear before the Supreme Court of NSW.

Due to the absence of the defendant and non-compliance with the originating service process, the Court previously granted substituted service orders, which the plaintiff complied with.

Legal Framework for Enforcing Foreign Judgments

In Australia, foreign judgments can be enforced either under the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) or through common law principles. Chinese court judgments are not listed under the Foreign Judgments Regulations 1992 (Cth) for automatic statutory recognition, necessitating reliance on common law principles.

Key Common Law Requirements for Enforcing Foreign Judgments

As outlined in Bao v Qu; Tian (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 588, four conditions must be satisfied for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments at common law:

  1. Jurisdiction in the International Sense
    • The foreign court must have exercised jurisdiction over the defendant. This condition is satisfied if the defendant was personally served or voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction.
    • In this case, the defendant was served via registered mail and appeared at the hearing, thereby submitting to the Chinese court’s jurisdiction.
  2. Final and Conclusive Judgment
    • The foreign judgment must resolve the legal controversy between the parties.
    • The Court determined that the Chinese judgment was final and conclusive as it made definitive orders and was not subject to any appeal within the provided timeframe.
  3. Identity of Parties
    • There must be consistency between the parties in the foreign judgment and the enforcement action.
    • The plaintiff provided evidence linking the defendant in both proceedings, satisfying this requirement.
  4. Judgment for a Fixed, Liquidated Sum
    • The judgment must specify a precise monetary amount.
    • The Chinese judgment clearly delineated the principal amount, accrued interest, and additional court-ordered costs.

Limited Grounds for Challenging Recognition

Once the four common law requirements are established, the defendant bears the onus of proving any grounds for refusing recognition. Typical defenses include fraud, breach of natural justice, or violations of public policy. However, since the defendant did not appear in this case, no such defenses were raised.

Court Findings and Resolution

Having established compliance with the common law principles, the Supreme Court of NSW found no valid basis to decline enforcement. Accordingly, the Court issued the following orders:

  • Judgment Enforcement: The defendant was ordered to pay RMB 11,125,042.66, representing the full amount awarded by the Chinese judgment, including interest and court fees.
  • Costs: The defendant was ordered to cover the plaintiff’s legal costs as agreed or assessed.
  • Accruing Interest: Interest will continue to accrue under s 101 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).

Conclusion: Practical Lessons for Enforcing Foreign Judgments

This case underscores the importance of meeting common law requirements when seeking to enforce foreign judgments in the Supreme Court of NSW. For jurisdictions not recognized under statutory frameworks, plaintiffs must meticulously demonstrate jurisdiction, finality, party identity, and a liquidated sum.

The information in this publication is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, we do not guarantee that the information in this publication is accurate at the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. We are not responsible for the information of any source to which a link is provided or reference is made and exclude all liability in connection with use of these sources. If you do not wish to receive newsletters from us, please let us know.

Latest Insights

How does the court assess pain and suffering?

In New South Wales (NSW), the assessment of pain and suffering—referred to legally as non-economic loss—is governed by the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) ("CLA"). This is compensation for the intangible effects of the injury, such as pain and suffering, loss of...

Property Disputes – How Can They Arise?

Property disputes arise in many different ways – not only in commercial contexts but also in residential settings.  Some of the types of property disputes include:...

Can a Child under 14 years commit a Crime?

In New South Wales, the age of criminal responsibility is 10 years old.  A child under 10 cannot be charged with a criminal offence. For children aged 10 to under 14, there is a legal presumption known as doli incapax, which assumes the child is incapable of...

Why is it important to know who your client is?

In a range of contexts, it is important to know who your client is. In most professional service contexts, the identity of the client is the starting point to providing advice.  If it is not clear who the professional advisor is advising, this can cause issues as...

Mental Harm Damages Following Birth Trauma: Lessons from Sorbello

In South Western Sydney Local Health District v Sorbello [2024] NSWCA 14, the New South Wales Court of Appeal has provided timely guidance on two important issues in personal injury litigation: how courts choose between competing expert opinions on mental harm, and...

Damages for Defamation – Newman v Whittington [2025] NSWSC 275

A family dispute resolution practitioner was awarded $150,000 in aggravated damages, $10,000 in interest, and an injunction in a recent Supreme Court of New South Wales case. The defendant posted defamatory statements about the plaintiff on WordPress, Facebook, and...

Review Panel Determines Right Hand Injury as Non-Threshold Injury

The Personal Injury Commission (PIC) has ruled in Tasseli v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2025] NSWPICMP 49 that damage to pre-existing surgical hardware constitutes a non-threshold injury, entitling the Claimant to ongoing statutory benefits and...

What are 5 legal requirements for a business?

When a new business is set up, there are various legal aspects which should be considered.  Some are more important than others in the early stages.  Obviously the nature of the business will dictate more specific legal requirements. We set out below some...

Court Dismisses Group Proceeding

A significant class action against Waller Legal Pty Ltd has been halted after the Supreme Court of Victoria ruled that the proceeding should no longer continue as a group proceeding. The case, Jane Jones (a pseudonym) v Waller Legal Pty Ltd [2025] VSC 42, involved...