China Justice Observer

中司观察

EnglishArabicChinese (Simplified)DutchFrenchGermanHindiItalianJapaneseKoreanPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishHebrewIndonesianVietnameseThaiTurkishMalay

Again! New Zealand Court Enforces Chinese Judgment

Sun, 23 Apr 2023
Categories: Insights

avatar

 

In 2023, the High Court of New Zealand ruled to enforce a judgment of a Beijing local court, marking the second time that a Chinese court monetary judgment has been recognized and enforced in New Zealand (BIN v SUN [2023] NZHC 436).

Key takeaways:

  • In March 2023, the High Court of New Zealand ruled to enforce a monetary judgment of a Beijing local court. (See BIN v SUN [2023] NZHC 436).
  • This case marks the second time, following the first case in 2016 ( Yang Chen v. Jinzhu Lin [2016] NZCA 113), that a Chinese court monetary judgment has been recognized and enforced in New Zealand.

On 8 Mar. 2023, the High Court of New Zealand, in the case of BIN v SUN [2023] NZHC 436, ruled to recognize a judgment of Haidian Primary People’s Court, Beijing, China.

Accordingly, the High Court of New Zealand upheld the Applicant’s claim in obtaining NZD 1,498,764.13, equivalent of the Chinese judgment together with interest and costs.

Ⅰ. Case Overview

The Claimant is MENG BIN and the Respondent is FANG SUN.

A dispute arose between the Claimant and the Respondent over an agreement of equity transfer, after which the Claimant filed a lawsuit with the Haidian Primary People’s Court, Beijing.

On 30 June 2019, the Haidian Primary People’s Court, Beijing ruled in favor of the Claimant. On 29 July 2019, the Respondent and other debtors in the judgment appealed to Beijing First Intermediate People’s Court. On 25 Nov. 2019, the appellate court dismissed the appeal.

The Haidian Primary People’s Court, Beijing thereafter only partially enforced the judgment. Therefore, the Claimant tried to seek recognition and enforcement of the judgment in New Zealand.

The Respondent was imprisoned in Paremoremo Prison on 23 Nov. 2022 for his involvement in a murder in New Zealand.

The High Court of New Zealand upheld the application for summary judgment based on the affidavits of both the applicant and his attorney in the Chinese litigation.

On 8 Mar. 2023, the High Court of New Zealand heard the case and issued an Oral Judgment in court, in which it upheld the Claimant’s claim for recognition of the Chinese judgment.

Ⅱ. Our Comments

To our knowledge, this case marks the second time that a New Zealand court has recognized and enforced a Chinese judgment.

On 11 Apr. 2016, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand enforced a Chinese monetary judgment to its full value in Yang Chen v. Jinzhu Lin, CA334/2015, [2016] NZCA 113. This is the first time that New Zealand has recognized and enforced a Chinese judgment.

In recent years, more and more wealthy Chinese are emigrating overseas, and New Zealand is one of their most important destination countries. While transferring their assets overseas, many of them leave debts in China. It is foreseeable that more and more Chinese judgments will be applied for recognition and enforcement in these destination countries, including New Zealand.

 

 

Photo by Dan Freeman on Unsplash

 

Contributors: Guodong Du 杜国栋 , Meng Yu 余萌

Save as PDF

You might also like

Legal Crossroads: Canadian Court Denies Summary Judgment for Chinese Judgment Recognition When Faced with Parallel Proceedings

In 2022, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice of Canada refused to grant summary judgment to enforce a Chinese monetary judgment in the context of two parallel proceedings in Canada, indicating that the two proceedings should proceed together as there was factual and legal overlap, and triable issues involved defenses of natural justice and public policy (Qingdao Top Steel Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Fasteners & Fittings Inc. 2022 ONSC 279).

Chinese Civil Settlement Statements: Enforceable in Singapore?

In 2016, the Singapore High Court refused to grant summary judgment to enforce a Chinese civil settlement statement, citing uncertainty about the nature of such settlement statements, also known as ‘(civil) mediation judgments’ (Shi Wen Yue v Shi Minjiu & Anor [2016] SGHC 137).

What’s New for China’s Rules on International Civil Jurisdiction? (B) - Pocket Guide to 2023 China’s Civil Procedure Law (3)

The Fifth Amendment (2023) to the PRC Civil Procedure Law has opened a new chapter on international civil jurisdiction rules in China, covering four types of jurisdictional grounds, parallel proceedings, lis alibi pendens, and forum non conveniens. This post focuses on how conflicts of jurisdiction are resolved through mechanisms such as lis alibi pendens, and forum non conveniens.

What’s New for China’s Rules on International Civil Jurisdiction? (A) - Pocket Guide to 2023 China’s Civil Procedure Law (2)

The Fifth Amendment (2023) to the PRC Civil Procedure Law has opened a new chapter on international civil jurisdiction rules in China, covering four types of jurisdictional grounds, parallel proceedings, lis alibi pendens, and forum non conveniens. This post focuses on the four types of jurisdictional grounds, namely special jurisdiction, jurisdiction by agreement, jurisdiction by submission, and exclusive jurisdiction.