This article was originally published in Conflict of Laws.net and is reproduced with the consent of the author Dr. Béligh Elbalti (The University of Osaka, Japan).

I. Introduction

The purpose of this note is to briefly introduce the recognition and enforcement regime in Mozambique based on a recent case decided by the Mozambican Supreme Court (Tribunal Supremo).

It aims modestly to help fill a gap in legal literature. Indeed, scholarly work on Mozambican private international law in general, and on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in particular, remains extremely limited (For an overview on Mozambican private international law system, see D Moura Vicente, ‘Mozambique’ in J Basedow et al. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Private International Law – Vol. III (Elgar, 2017) 2354).

The note also seeks to shed light on recognition and enforcement practice in a country that has largely remained outside the radar of comparative law scholars and researchers.

It is hoped that this contribution will encourage more detailed and in-depth studies that do justice to a legal system which appears, despite some anachronistic aspects of its legal regime, to have one of the most liberal enforcement practices in Africa.

II.The Case

The case presented here concerns the enforcement in Mozambique of a Chinese judgment in a dispute involving two Chinese citizens resident in Mozambique. The underlying factual background may be summarized as follows.

The dispute appears to have arisen from a breach of contractual obligation. The applicant, X, initially tried to recover the debt in Mozambique by initiating execution proceedings against Y (the respondent) for payment of a sum of money (ação executiva para pagamento de quantia certa). However, the Mozambican court upheld the objections to execution (embargos à execução) filed by Y and dismissed the execution for lack of evidence prove the existence of an enforceable title or establishing the alleged debt.

X subsequently initiated civil condemnation proceedings (processo de Condenação Civil) in China, claiming damages for breach of contract, and obtained in his favor a judgment ordering Y to pay damages. Armed with a final Chinese judgment, X sought its enforcement in Mozambique by bringing an action for review and confirmation (revisão e confirmação).

Y challenged the review and confirmation of the foreign judgment on the grounds that there is an identity between the prior execution proceedings in Mozambique and the confirmation proceedings. X replied that the two actions differed in terms of the legal effects sought (the execution proceedings concerned the compulsory payment of a debt and not concerned with the review and confirmation of a foreign judgment) and cause of action (the execution proceedings were based on the alleged existence of an enforceable title, whereas the confirmation proceedings were based on the existence of a foreign judgment requiring recognition and enforcement).

III. The Ruling

In deciding this issue, the Mozambican Supreme Court rules as follows (Case No. 75/2024-C of 25 April 2025).

The Court first cited the relevant provision of the CCP setting out the conditions for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Mozambique (Article 1096). Under that provision, a foreign judgment may be declared enforceable (confirmed) only if seven conditions are satisfied:

a) the authenticity and intelligibility of the decision;
b) the final and binding character of the judgment in the State of origin;
c) the jurisdiction of the foreign court under Mozambican rules on conflicts of jurisdiction;
d) the absence of lis pendensor res judicataarising from proceedings before Mozambican courts, unless the foreign court was first seized;
e) proper service of the defendant;
f) compliance with Mozambican public policy; and
g) where the judgment is rendered against a Mozambican national, respect for Mozambican substantive law where applicable under Mozambican conflict-of-laws rules.

Then the Court moved to examine each of the above conditions, with a special focus on the legal issue raised by the parties, ruling as follows (detailed summary):

Mozambique applies a delibation (delibação) system for the recognition of foreign judgments. Under this system, focus is placed on compliance with formal requirements laid down by Article 1096. There is therefore no review of the merits, except with regard to a possible violation of public policy or domestic private law where the judgment was rendered against a Mozambican national (the so-called nationality privilege).

Regarding the requirement of authenticity and intelligibility, the judgment was duly legalized and raises no doubts as to its intelligibility.

Accordingly, the requirement of Article 1096(a) is satisfied

Regarding finality, this requirement is presumed to be satisfied in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Since the presumption was not rebutted, the requirement under Article 1096(b) is satisfied.

Regarding the jurisdiction of the foreign court, Mozambican law predominantly follows the bilateral (mirror-image) theory, according to which a foreign court is internationally competent if a Mozambican court would have had jurisdiction in comparable circumstances. The case concerned a contractual claim for damages. Under Mozambican rules of international jurisdiction, such claims fall within the jurisdiction of the courts of the place of performance of the obligation. As the obligation was to be performed in the State of origin, the foreign court was internationally competent for the purposes of Article 1096(c).

Accordingly, the requirement of Article 1096(c) is also satisfied.

Regarding the issue of res judicata disputed by the parties, this requirement aims to prevent contradictory effects within the Mozambican legal order by barring enforcement where a Mozambican court has already rendered a final decision on the same dispute, involving the same parties, claim, and cause of action, as that decided by the foreign court. For this purpose, the comparison for determining whether the res judicata exception exists is not between the action for the enforcement of the foreign judgment (action for review and confirmation) and another action brought before Mozambican courts. Rather, res judicata, for the purposes of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, results from a comparison between the action decided by the foreign court (which resulted in the judgment sought to be declared enforceable) and the action decided by Mozambican courts concerning the same dispute. In the present case, although Y alleged the existence of res judicata based on earlier Mozambican proceedings, he failed to establish the required identity of parties, claim, and cause of action.

Accordingly, the requirement under Article 1096(d) is satisfied.

Regarding proper service, both the applicant and the respondent had the opportunity to participate in the foreign proceedings.

Accordingly, the requirement under Article 1096(e) is also satisfied.

Regarding public policy, the foreign judgment in question does not contravene Mozambican public policy principles, as civil liability for damage resulting from breach of legal transactions is an institution widely accepted in Mozambique.

Finally, with regard to the requirement under Article 1096(g), since both parties are Chinese nationals, the judgment was not rendered against a Mozambican national, the nationality privilege does not arise, rendering this provision inapplicable.

IV. Comments

The decision of the Mozambican Supreme Court is both interesting and significant in several respects, two of which are particularly noteworthy. First, it is interesting because it reproduces various elements discussed in literature, notably in an article published in 2022 by M. Muchanga,[i] who also serves as the President of the Mozambican Supreme Court (A M Muchanga, ‘Reconhecimento de Sentenças Estrangeiras em Matéria de Direito Privado na Ordem Jurídica Moçambicana’ 1 O Embondeiro: Revista Dos Tribunais (2022) 15).

The decision is also significant because it does not only clarify some general principles underlying the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Mozambique (1), but also it sheds further light on the specific conditions applicable to their recognition and enforcement (2).

1. General Principles underlying the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Mozambique

a) Applicable legal framework

Mozambican law in the field of the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, and private international law more generally, is not merely inspired by Portuguese law; it is, in fact, Portuguese law, extended to Mozambique when it was one of Portugal’s overseas (ultramar) territories. Regarding the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, the relevant rules are contained in the Portuguese CCP of 1961 (Código de Processo Civil), whose application was extended to Mozambique in 1962 (Articles 1094–1101). This legal framework, inherited at independence in 1975, continues to govern the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Mozambique. These rules are particularly significant given the extremely limited number of conventions concluded by Mozambique (e.g., the 1990 Mozambican–Portuguese Convention on Legal and Judicial Assistance), which, in practice, are generally not invoked by the courts, even in situations where international conventions would, in principle, apply.

b) Reciprocity not required

Recognition and enforcement in Mozambique do not depend on the existence of reciprocity. Judgments rendered in states where recognition and enforcement are themselves subject to a reciprocity requirement, such as China (Article 299 of the Chinese CCP), do not appear to encounter particular difficulties when enforcement is sought in Mozambique, as the present case clearly illustrates. Other cases show a similar practice, with judgments from countries requiring reciprocity (such as Germany and the UAE (Dubai)) being smoothly recognized and enforced in Mozambique.

It is also worth mentioning that the Supreme Court of Mozambique concluded in 2018 a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China, which, inter alia, aims to facilitate the recognition and enforcement of judgments in both countries (Article 4). However, this MoU does not appear to have played any decisive role, either directly or indirectly, in the outcome of the present case.

c) Necessity for review and confirmation procedure

Giving effect to foreign judgments in Mozambique is based on the so-called delibation (delibação) system, i.e. a process of individualized review through which foreign judgments would be admitted or not to produce their legal effects in the forum, including res judicata effects (Muchanga, op.cit., 21). This confirms, along with other relevant provisions in the CCP (Article 497(4), 1094(1)), that foreign judgment do not enjoy de plano effect (automatic recognition) in Mozambique.

d) No review of the merits

As a matter of principle, review of the merits is not permitted, and the case law of the Supreme Court is fairly consistent on this point. This principle, however, admits two notable exceptions, as indicated in the decision: public policy and the so-called nationality privilege (Muchanga, op. cit., at 21). As the present case clearly illustrates, review of the merits is only exceptionally engaged on public-policy grounds. By contrast, review of the merits becomes more relevant in connection with the nationality privilege, notably in the application of Article 1096(g). Here again, as will be shown below, the case law of the Supreme Court is far from turning this requirement into an insurmountable hurdle, even where the foreign decision (including arbitral awards) is rendered against a Mozambican national.

2. Requirements for the Recognition and Enforcement in Mozambique

According to Article 1101 of the CCP, the court dealing with recognition and enforcement requests should not only examine ex officio certain requirements (notably those relating to authenticity, public policy, and the nationality privilege) but should also, on its own motion, refuse recognition and enforcement if, upon examination of the case file, it appears that any of the other statutory requirements are not satisfied. For this reason, although the parties’ submissions focused primarily on the fulfilment of one specific requirement, the Supreme Court nonetheless examined whether all the remaining conditions were met. This approach is consistent with the Court’s established practice, which systematically undertakes a comprehensive review of all statutory requirements for recognition and enforcement.

Below is a brief overview of the recognition and enforcement requirements as set out in Article 1096 of the CCP, considered in light of the Supreme Court’s practice.

a) Authenticity and intelligibility

The authenticity requirement relates essentially to the origin of the foreign judgment (Muchanga, op. cit., at 25). Typically, authenticity is verified through the process of legalization in accordance with the applicable legal provisions (notably Article 540 of the CCP). Supreme Court case law shows that the Court often requests the party seeking enforcement to provide the necessary legalization when it is not included in the initial application. As for intelligibility, this concerns the clarity and comprehensibility of the foreign decision (Muchanga, op. cit., at 26). Several Supreme Court decisions indicate that this requirement applies particularly to the operative part of the judgment.

b) Finality

In Mozambique, courts generally recognise and enforce only foreign judgments that are final under the law of the State of origin as repeatedly confirmed by the Supreme Court. Proof of the finality of the foreign judgment takes the form of a certificate attesting that the judgment has become final and binding under the law of the country of origin. However, as the present case shows, the Supreme Court considered that finality is presumed even in the absence of documentary evidence establishing it. This presumption may nevertheless be rebutted by the respondent through the submission of appropriate evidence.

c) Indirect jurisdiction.

One of the most important clarifications concerns the standard by which the jurisdictional requirement is to be assessed. Contrary to what has been suggested in some scholarly writings,[ii] the jurisdiction of the foreign court must be assessed by reference to Mozambican rules of direct jurisdiction, in the sense that a foreign court is regarded as competent if, in comparable circumstances, Mozambican courts would have assumed jurisdiction. This approach is commonly described as the bilateralisation of rules of direct jurisdiction, or – more widely known – the mirror-image principle (Muchanga, op. cit., at 28).

d) Res judicata and Lis pendens, or Conflicting Judgments and Proceedings

In the context of the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, the defence of lis pendens applies where a foreign judgment was rendered while proceedings were still pending before Mozambican courts, whereas the defence of res judicata applies where a Mozambican court has already rendered a final and binding judgment on the same matter. In such cases, the foreign judgment may be denied recognition and enforcement, as its admission would either undermine Mozambican proceedings or judgments, or eventually result in two contradictory final judgments producing effects within the Mozambican legal order (Muchanga, op. cit., at 30).

The application of both the lis pendens and res judicata defences requires identity between the foreign and domestic actions with respect to the parties, the claim, and the cause of action (Article 498(1) of the CCP). Accordingly, the res judicata defence was not admitted when the party resisting enforcement of a foreign divorce judgment awarding parental authority and alimony invoked the existence of a Mozambican judgment that had only declared the dissolution of the marriage.

The significance of the present case lies in the Supreme Court’s clarification that the res judicata defence should be assessed based on a comparison between the action adjudicated by the foreign court and the action previously decided by Mozambican courts, rather than between the review-and-confirmation proceedings and the local action.

e) Service and right to defence

While Article 1096(e) primarily refers to proper service, this provision is generally understood broadly to encompass not only the defendant’s right to be duly informed of the proceedings but also the right to a genuine opportunity to be heard (Muchanga, op. cit., at 31). This interpretation is confirmed by the present decision, in which the Supreme Court focused on the parties’ opportunity to participate in the foreign proceedings. Case law shows that, in line with the wording of Article 1096(e), where Mozambican law dispenses with initial service, there is no need to verify whether the defendant was formally served. It also shows that defects or irregularities in service can be cured if the losing party actively participated in the proceedings before the foreign courts.

f) Public policy

In the present case, the Supreme Court found no violations of Mozambican public policy, understood in the literature as “international public policy” (ordem pública internacional), which concerns “the fundamental principles structuring the Mozambican legal order” (Muchanga, op. cit., at 31–32). It is worth noting that, while the Supreme Court has recognized public policy as an exception to the principle prohibiting review of the merits, in other cases it has addressed public policy from the perspective of the effects (efeitos) of foreign judgments, which should not be intolerable for the Mozambican legal order.

g) Choice-of-law test or the privilege of nationality

This is one of the most emblematic requirements in the Mozambican enforcement regime inherited from Portuguese law. Under this provision, foreign judgments rendered against Mozambican nationals must not contravene Mozambican private law where, under Mozambican conflict-of-laws rules, Mozambican law would have applied. This is commonly known as the “privilege of nationality.” (Muchanga, op. cit., at 21, 31).

What is remarkable in Mozambican practice is that, despite the anachronistic nature of this requirement,[iii] it has played a relatively limited role. Case law shows that the privilege operates only if two conditions are met: (1) Mozambican law governs the dispute according to Mozambican conflict-of-laws rules; and (2) the judgment was rendered against a Mozambican national, i.e., the unsuccessful party in the foreign proceedings.

Accordingly, as the present decision shows, when the foreign judgment concerns only foreign parties, this provision does not apply. This approach is also extended to cases in which a foreign judgment cannot technically be regarded as rendered against a Mozambican national, such as non-contentious proceedings. In such situations, the Supreme Court has found the requirements of Article 1096(g) to be satisfied.

Second, and most importantly, the privilege applies only when Mozambican law should have been applied under Mozambican choice-of-law rules. Accordingly, if the foreign law applied by the court of origin corresponds to the law that would be applicable under Mozambican rules, the privilege of nationality does not apply, even if the judgment is rendered against a Mozambican national. In these situations, the Supreme Court has frequently concluded that there is no inconsistency with Mozambican private law and that the requirement in Article 1096(g) is satisfied. The scope of this exception is considerable, notably in international commercial contracts, where party autonomy is generally recognized and fully upheld by Mozambican courts.[iv]

V. Concluding Remarks – Peculiarities of the Recognition and Enforcement Practice in Mozambique

As mentioned above, Mozambican law in the field of the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is of Portuguese origin. It therefore appears quite natural that Mozambican scholars, and even judges of the Mozambican Supreme Court, rely heavily on Portuguese case law and scholarly writings when interpreting and applying Mozambican law and the inherited Portuguese legal framework. This is more so given the scarcity of legal literature and scholarly writings in the field.

This state of affairs seems to justify the strong temptation to view the legal framework in force in Mozambique – as well as in other Lusophone countries, particularly in Africa[v]  – through Portuguese lenses, which may lead one to assume that Mozambican private international law is identical to that applicable (or formerly applicable) in Portugal (except of course where Portugal has since moved beyond the rules left in its former colonies).

This approach nevertheless suffers from some serious shortcomings. First, due to the over-reliance on Portuguese literature and case law, the solutions developed by the Mozambican Supreme Court remain largely unknown. Second, such reliance also risks superimposing an external legal perspective on Mozambican judicial and practical realities. By way of illustration, the Portuguese legal framework governing the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is often portrayed in literature as allowing, under certain circumstances, a review of the merits and control over the law applied by the foreign court.[vi] These features have frequently been criticized as constituting a “serious obstacle to the recognition of foreign judgments” in Portugal.[vii] It has indeed been observed that, in Portuguese practice, choice-of-law control operates so as to bar a significant number of enforcement cases.[viii] If one were to assume that a similar approach prevails in Mozambique, one would expect comparable obstacles to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments before Mozambican courts.[ix]

Available case law, however, presents a completely different picture. An examination of approximately 28 decisions of the Mozambican Supreme Court concerning the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments between 2013 and 2025 shows that, excluding the few cases rejected on purely procedural grounds or subsequently withdrawn, the success rate of enforcement applications is remarkable: 100%.

Those cases also show that foreign judgments from various counties, including Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, England, South Africa, Australia, UAE (Dubai) and China, all were recognized and enforced, often without any particular difficulty, with the court sometimes simply enumerating the recognition and enforcement requirements and concluding that they were all satisfied. Moreover, although the nationality privilege is often examined in the Supreme Court’s decisions, the available cases indicate that it has not constituted a serious obstacle to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.

These observations highlight the importance of consulting local case law rather than relying solely on assumptions drawn from other jurisdictions. Careful study of domestic practice provides valuable insights for both legal scholars and practitioners,[x] and contributes to a more accurate understanding of how foreign judgments are recognized and enforced in practice, within their local legal context and environment.

——————————

[i] M. Muchanga, who also a university lecturer, has been involved in many of reported foreign judgments enforcement cases, including the one commented on here.

[ii] See eg, R F Oppong, ‘Private International Law and the African Economic Community: A Plea for Greater Attention’ 55 International & Comparative Law Quarterly (2006) 917, explaining that the ‘international jurisdiction of the foreign court will…be recognized only when the court of the forum did not claim jurisdiction of its own over the subject-matter’. The formulation suggests that the indirect jurisdiction of the foreign court would be denied whenever the jurisdiction of the Mozambican courts is justified according to its own rules of direct jurisdiction.

[iii] See F K. Juenger, ‘The Recognition of Money Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters’ 36 AJCL (1988) 34.

[iv] On the issue of the law applicable to commercial contracts in Mozambique, see R Dias and C F Nordmeier, ‘Angola and Mozambique’, in D Girsberger et al. (eds.), Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts: Global Perspectives on the Hague Principles (OUP, 2021) 265.

[v] Lusophone countries are countries or territories where Portuguese is an official language. African Lusophone countries include Mozambique, Angola, Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, São Tomé and Príncipe. Outside Africa they include, in addition to Portugal, Brazil, East Timor and Macau (China).

[vi] See eg S P. Baumgartner, ‘How Well Do U.S. Judgments Fare in Europe?’ 40 The Geo. Wash. Int’l L. Rev. (2008) 187, 228.

[vii] S P. Baumgartner, ‘Understanding the Obstacles to the Recognition and Enforcement of U.S. Judgments Abroad’ 45 International Law and Politics (2013) 978.

[viii] See C M D Da Silva, ‘De la reconnaissance et de l’exécution des jugements étrangers au Portugal (hors du cqdre de l’application des conventions de Bruxelles et de Lugano)’, in G Walter and S P. Baumgartner (eds.), Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments Outside the Scope of the Brussels and Lugano Conventions (Kluwer Law International, 2000) 481.

[ix] See eg R Dias and C F Nordmeier, ‘Private International Law of Contracts in Angola and Mozambique’ 37 Obiter (2016) 138.

[x] In this sense also, A Boris, ‘The Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments within the CEMAC Zone’, on this blog.

Photo by Mister Paps on Unsplash

This article was originally published in Transnational Litigation Blog and is reproduced with the consent of the authors, Dr. Wenliang Zhang and Dr. Meng Yu.

Over the past decade, many jurisdictions have witnessed a marked increase in cases involving the cross-border recognition and enforcement of judgments. This trend reflects the practical need to recover debts across borders and to prevent evasive debtors from hiding assets abroad.

China is rapidly catching up with the international community in this domain, with a growing number of foreign judgments being recognized in China and an increasing number of Chinese judgments enforced overseas. This development represents a historic shift. To sustain further progress, it is essential to examine the persistent challenges that hinder the establishment of a smooth and reliable Sino-foreign judgment-enforcement regime.

This post seeks to identify the central obstacles and propose potential pathways for addressing them, with particular emphasis on the enforcement of Chinese judgments in foreign jurisdictions. Although the recognition and enforcement of judgments between China and the rest of the world is inherently reciprocal and interdependent, this post focuses primarily on the relatively underexplored outbound direction—i.e., the enforcement of Chinese judgments abroad—because it is here that the most serious obstacles exist. Understanding and removing these obstacles is the key to sustaining and expanding the framework of mutual recognition.

A Fast-Shifting Landscape

In any jurisdiction—including China—the enforcement of outbound domestic judgments is fundamentally interconnected with the enforcement of inbound foreign judgments. Accordingly, when considering the recognition and enforcement of Chinese judgments abroad, it is equally necessary to examine how foreign judgments are treated in China.

A decade ago, enforcing foreign judgments in China was nearly impossible without a bilateral treaty or clear evidence of de facto reciprocity. Today, the landscape looks dramatically different—not because of an expansion of treaties or conventions, but because of the progressive reinterpretation of reciprocity by Chinese courts.

In recent years, Chinese courts have recognized dozens of foreign judgments. Statistics from China Justice Observer (CJO) indicate that Chinese courts recognized thirty-two foreign judgments between 2016 and 2025, compared with two during 2006-2015, two during 1996-2005. This sharp increase has been reinforced by instances in which foreign courts first recognized Chinese judgments, prompting reciprocal action by Chinese courts. The Supreme People’s Court (SPC) has played a leading role in this transformation, guiding lower courts to adopt a more flexible understanding of reciprocity. Notably, under the de jure reciprocity test—one of three new tests, alongside reciprocal consensus and reciprocal commitment—reciprocity is now considered to exist if Chinese judgments may be recognized or enforced under the foreign jurisdiction’s laws. As Bill Dodge and Wenliang Zhang have observed, China’s judiciary has become an active participant in the emerging global framework for judgment enforcement, progressively aligning its domestic rules with international norms.

At the same time, foreign jurisdictions have shown growing openness to enforcing Chinese judgments. According to CJO, twenty-one Chinese judgments were recognized abroad between 2016 and 2025, compared with nine during 2006-2015, and two during 1996-2005. This mutual evolution has given rise to what might be called a “follow-suit recognition model”—a pattern in which recognition by one jurisdiction encourages reciprocal recognition by another.

The relaxation of rigid reciprocity barriers has facilitated a meaningful expansion of the cross-border enforceability of Chinese judgments. Two key forces are driving this shift. First, the growing tendency of Chinese debtors to transfer or hide assets abroad compels creditors to seek enforcement overseas. Second, foreign courts are motivated by the expectation of reciprocal treatment by Chinese courts. In the absence of treaties, reciprocity is the only basis on which Chinese courts will recognize foreign judgments. Courts in the United States, the United Kingdom, Israel, Australia, and Canada have all enforced Chinese judgments, often citing the importance of ensuring mutual recognition.

Why Outbound Enforcement Remains the Bottleneck

However, enforcement of Chinese judgments abroad is far from assured. Two broad categories of obstacles stand out. First, legal hurdles in foreign jurisdictions may still limit the recognition of Chinese judgments. Second, Chinese judgment creditors may lack the necessary confidence to pursue enforcement abroad because of financial constraints and risk aversion in unfamiliar foreign judicial settings.

Legal Hurdles

Traditionally, refusal grounds such as public policy or lack of reciprocity were frequently invoked, but these defenses now appear far less significant. Practice shows that the public policy exception is seldom applied, and the reciprocity requirement has gradually been relaxed.

However, service-of-process issues have become increasingly prominent, as evasive debtors often avoid appearing in Chinese proceedings and enforcement abroad of default judgments issued by Chinese courts has become more common. Chinese service practices are therefore being tested in foreign enforcement proceedings.

Similarly, when foreign judgments are enforced in China, service requirements have long posed difficulties and continue to be a key concern today. For instance, in Rockefeller Technology Investments (Asia VII) v. Changzhou SinoType Technology Co., service of process became a major point of contention. If the prevailing party in that case were to seek enforcement of the U.S. judgment in China, Chinese courts would likely question the adequacy of U.S. procedures for service.

A further challenge—rarely seen in past practice—relates to allegations that the Chinese legal system as a whole lacks impartial tribunals or due process guarantees. Two prominent cases illustrate this trend. In Shanghai Yongrun Investment Management Co. v. Kashi Galaxy Venture Capital Co., the judgment debtor argued that the Chinese judgment “was rendered under a system which does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with due process,” citing U.S. State Department human rights reports. The New York Supreme Court initially accepted this argument—a ruling that, if upheld, could have signaled a categorical rejection of all Chinese judgments. Fortunately, the Appellate Division reversed, holding that systemic allegations cannot substitute for case-specific evidence and that the cited reports were insufficient to show a lack of fairness in the particular case. The matter remains under appeal, however. Resort to such defenses risks significantly delaying enforcement of Chinese judgments abroad and discouraging creditors from seeking recognition.

A similar challenge appeared in New Zealand in Hebei Huaneng Industrial Development Co. Ltd v. Shi. (Disclosure: one of the authors, Wenliang Zhang, acted as a legal expert and opined that the Chinese judiciary is trustworthy and complies with due process requirements.) In 2024, after prolonged proceedings, the High Court ultimately declined to accept allegations of systemic judicial bias in China and ruled in favor of enforcement. But, in a further development, the Court of Appeal allowed the case to be reopened and instructed the lower court to consider the judgment debtor’s fraud defense. The use of such a defense runs counter to the principle of non-examination of the merits of foreign judgments and undoubtedly poses additional legal obstacles to the enforcement of Chinese judgments in New Zealand.

Such arguments are new, and they reflect both desperate litigation tactics by debtors and an erosion of trust in China’s judiciary. It may be argued that such isolated cases do not change the mainstream approach to enforcing Chinese judgments in other jurisdictions. However, such troubling cases may inevitably set worrying precedents, and the resulting distrust could affect the long-term landscape of Sino-foreign judgment enforcement.

Confidence Hurdles

Current practice also shows that enforcing Chinese judgments abroad is unfamiliar to many Chinese creditors. Even as foreign courts show greater openness to recognizing Chinese judgments, these creditors remain hesitant to pursue enforcement abroad. This hesitancy partly explains the ongoing asymmetry in Sino-foreign judgment recognition. As the CJO statistics discussed above show, while foreign judgments are increasingly recognized in China, far fewer Chinese judgments are enforced overseas.

Several factors underlie Chinese creditors’ risk-aversion. China’s “recognition market” is still relatively new. Many Chinese creditors assume that enforcement must occur domestically and that, once debtors shift assets overseas, further recourse is unavailable. Only recently have several landmark cases emerged involving enforcement of Chinese judgments abroad, with Hubei Gezhouba Sanlian Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Robinson Helicopter Co. standing as a leading, early example.

Cross-border enforcement is also widely perceived within China as prohibitively expensive and unpredictable. Uncapped, hourly foreign legal fees are unfamiliar and often unacceptable to Chinese creditors, who are accustomed to the comparatively predictable cost structure of the Chinese domestic legal services market. Procedural complexity further discourages action. In common law jurisdictions, procedures such as discovery and cross-examination may be daunting. Meanwhile, many Chinese lawyers possess limited experience with foreign litigation and enforcement rules, further deterring creditors from taking action overseas.

The Outlook for Enforcing Chinese Judgments Abroad

Looking ahead, we see both promise and vulnerability. While foreign courts have shown increasing willingness to engage constructively with China’s judicial system, this openness coexists with persistent legal concerns that must be carefully managed. To secure lasting progress, the identified legal and practical barriers—particularly the emerging systemic objections and the confidence deficit among Chinese creditors—need to be addressed.

Foreign jurisdictions can play a decisive role in this process. By continuing to evaluate Chinese judgments based primarily on case-specific evidence rather than broad assumptions about the Chinese legal system, foreign courts will reinforce the reciprocal foundation on which recent advances depend. Selective or discriminatory treatment risks eroding the principle of mutual respect and reciprocity—the cornerstone of international judicial cooperation. Excessive scrutiny of Chinese judgments may unfairly burden individual litigants and ultimately discourage the enforcement of foreign judgments within China.

Arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, China has firmly established the essential guarantees of impartial adjudication and procedural fairness in its law and practice, and continues to invest substantial efforts in strengthening its position as a respected center for international commercial litigation. In an interconnected global legal order, sustainable cooperation can only be built on mutual respect for judicial processes. Only when Chinese judgments are routinely enforced abroad with confidence and consistency will the virtuous circle of reciprocity become truly self-reinforcing—benefiting creditors and courts on all sides.

Photo by Meng He on Unsplash

[Abstract]

In the case of Amazon Joyo v. CNIPA & Seletech et al. (2024), China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) addressed the procedural hurdles of serving an elusive foreign litigant in an intellectual property dispute. By integrating the Hague Service Convention with domestic civil procedure, the SPC validated a non-hierarchical, multi-track service strategy. This commentary analyzes how the court’s use of multiple means, particularly postal and electronic channels, combats procedural abuse while upholding due process norms.

In international litigation, effective service of process on foreign parties is a foundational requirement that balances due process with judicial efficiency. A recent judgment by China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) in Amazon Joyo Co., Ltd. v. CNIPA & Seletech et al. (2024) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Xing Zhong No. 141 provides a blueprint for addressing these challenges in service. Facing a U.S.-based co-patent holder who actively evaded participation, the SPC utilized a combination of domestic statutes and the Hague Service Convention to affirm the validity of multi-track service. The ruling underscores a shift in China’s foreign-related judicial practice, moving toward a proactive, flexible, and non-hierarchical service framework designed to prevent bad-faith procedural delays.

I.Case Background

The case arose from an invalidation request filed by Amazon Joyo Co., Ltd. (“Amazon”) concerning a Chinese invention patent in multimedia communication. The patent was granted in 2019 to Sellerbid (a Chinese company), Ms. Anne Wong (a U.S. citizen residing in Texas), and Mr. T. Wong (her brother, a Chinese resident).

Amazon first sought invalidation before the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), which upheld the patent. Amazon appealed to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, naming Sellerbid, Ms. Wong, and Mr. Wang as third parties, but the first-instance court dismissed the claims in December 2023. Undeterred, Amazon appealed to the SPC, which accepted the case and conducted hearings amid ongoing procedural hurdles.

During the proceedings, the challenge of serving Ms. Wong arose, as she refused to confirm addresses and evaded participation. Sellerbid’s representative, Ms. Ning Wang (Ms. Wong’s sister-in-law), and Mr. Wang attended the first hearing but withdrew midway through the second, contesting service on Ms. Wong. Ms. Wong herself did not appear despite the court summons. The SPC ultimately revoked the CNIPA decision and the first-instance judgment, remanding for re-examination primarily on patent creativity, but it dedicated significant reasoning to validating the service efforts.

II.Multi-Track Service of Process

The SPC employed a comprehensive multi-track service strategy to address Ms. Wong's evasion, employing postal, electronic, substituted, and announcement methods to safeguard the procedural integrity.

Service by post served as a primary channel in this case. Using a Texas address previously disclosed by Ms. Wong in related proceedings, the SPC dispatched the judicial documents via China Post EMS. Tracking data from the United States Postal Service (USPS) confirmed the package was “Delivered, Left with Individual” in May 2025. This method aligns with Article 283(8) of the 2023 PRC Civil Procedure Law (CPL), which allows postal service when permitted by the law of the destination state.

Electronic service supplemented the postal efforts, grounded in Ms. Wong’s prior consent. In the first-instance trial, she had executed a “Confirmation of Service Address,” designating a specific email address for judicial communications and stipulating its validity for the appellate stage. The SPC transmitted the documents to this address, and for added assurance, also utilized a secondary email that Ms. Wong had disclosed in associated litigation. This aligns with CPL Article 283(9), which allows electronic service provided the method is verifiable and is not prohibited by the law of the destination state.

Further attempts included service through associated domestic addresses. The Court first attempted substituted service via Ms. Wong’s relative who is also a litigant in the case and business associates (i.e. patent co-holders with common interests) in Beijing. When these parties refused to cooperate, the SPC issued two public announcements, each exceeding the 60-day statutory period. These efforts established a comprehensive record of diligence, showing that the Court had exhausted every available domestic and international means of service.

III. Analysis: Harmonizing International Obligations with Domestic Efficiency

The significance of the Amazon decision lies not merely in its outcome, but in the SPC’s articulate reasoning regarding the legality of service methods.

3.1 The Non-Hierarchical Framework on Service

China's framework for cross-border service integrates international conventions with domestic legislation to offer courts adaptable tools for effective delivery. The Hague Service Convention, to which both China and the United States are parties, establishes a central authority channel for judicial assistance while permitting alternative methods unless a state expressly objects. On the domestic front, Article 283 of the CPL enumerates eleven service options for parties without a Chinese domicile, and these apply to administrative disputes like this case through Article 101 of the Administrative Litigation Law, which refers to CPL rules for procedural elements such as service.

This framework stands out for its lack of mandatory sequencing among methods, empowering courts to choose based on case-specific needs and thereby prioritizing efficiency alongside fairness. As elaborated in a recent SPC commentary,^[i] and shown in the Ministry of Justice’s FAQs (2025),^[ii] there is no requirement to exhaust treaty-based routes before alternatives; instead, options like service by postal and electronic means, service to designated agents, can be selected if they respect the destination state’s sovereignty and treaty limits. In this case, the SPC used verified addresses and consented emails from the outset, demonstrating how such flexibility prevents delays without undermining due process.

3.2 Validity Criteria for Service by Post and by E-mail

The SPC applied both international treaties and Chinese laws in employing postal and electronic service, ensuring the procedural soundness.

Service by post, under the CPL Article 283(8) and Article 10(a) of the Hague Convention, proved central to the strategy, given that the US (the destination state) allows delivery through mail as long as no compulsion is used.[iii] By using Ms. Wong's self-provided Texas address and verifying delivery through postal records from China Post EMS and the U.S. Postal Service, the SPC satisfied the validity criteria outlined in the HCCH Practical Handbook: adherence to the law of the state of origin and no objection to such use from the destination state. [iv]

Electronic service via email, under CPL Article 283(9), further illustrated this careful compliance, hinging on Ms. Wong's explicit consent in her prior confirmation form. Adopting the “functional equivalence” approach from SPC guidelines on foreign-related trials,[v] the Court treated email as akin to postal channels, deeming it permissible since the US permits postal service and its own courts frequently use emails to reach elusive foreign litigants,[vi] rendering it a valid tool for service. 

3.3 The “Every Reasonable Effort” Standard

The SPC’s persistent service attempts, extending well beyond the initial postal and email successes, embodied the Hague Service Convention’s emphasis on making “every reasonable effort” to provide notice, which in turn justified proceeding to a default judgment and deterred procedural manipulation.

Although delivery through mail and consented email already established an effective service, the Court pursued additional domestic substitutions and public announcements to build an unassailable record. By engaging Ms. Wong's co-litigants—her family member and aligned parties—the SPC exposed and addressed bad-faith refusals, such as Ms. Ning Wang's implausible claim of ignorance, interpreting these as breaches of good faith that could not halt the case. This exhaustive diligence not only assured actual or constructive awareness, but also countered evasion tactics, setting a strong precedent for maintaining efficiency in cross-border disputes without tolerating obstruction.

IV. Comment

The Amazon judgment is widely welcomed by legal scholars as a model of advancing judicial capacity in foreign-related adjudication, where the Court skillfully balances adherence to international treaties with proactive steps to ensure due process and combat procedural abuse.

Professor Zhengxin Huo, Vice President of the China Society of Private International Law and professor at China University of Political Science and Law, underscores the ruling's importance in this regard. He observes that Chinese courts are growing more proficient in applying international conventions and civil procedure rules precisely, particularly when fulfilling service requirements for parties domiciled abroad. In Professor Huo’s view, by employing multiple channels and advancing to default judgment only after meeting all statutory conditions, courts exhibit rigorous compliance with treaties and domestic law; this not only safeguards litigants’ procedural rights but also prevents the misuse of process to impede justice, thereby enhancing the overall effectiveness of foreign-related trials.

All in all, the decision provides legal practitioners with a clear roadmap for navigating service of process in an era of globalization, affirming that such rules can remain stringent yet adaptable, protecting all parties' interests while resisting delays driven by bad-faith evasion.

Related Posts

• Series: International Service of Process in China
• Thus Spoke Chinese Judges on Cross-border Service of Process: Insights from Chinese Supreme Court Justices on 2023 Civil Procedure Law Amendment (2)
• Serving Judgments to China-based Defendants by Mail? Think Twice

[i] The Fourth Civil Division of China’s Supreme People’s Court, Understanding and Application of the Conference Summary of the Symposium on Foreign-related Commercial and Maritime Trials of Courts Nationwide [Quanguo Fayuan Shewai Shangshi Haishi Shenpan Gongzuo Zuotanhui Jiyao Lijie Yu Shiyong], People’s Court Press, 2023, pp. 104-105.

[ii] Ministry of Justice, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Regarding International Civil and Commercial Judicial Assistance (March 21, 2025), available at https://www.moj.gov.cn/pub/sfbgw/jgsz/jgszzsdw/zsdwsfxzjlzx/sfxzjlzxxwdt/202503/t20250324_516204.html

[iii] The United States has no objection to the informal delivery of such documents by members of diplomatic or consular missions in the United States, or through mail, or by private persons – if effective under applicable law – provided no compulsion is used. See HCCH, United States of America - Central Authority & practical information, available at https://www.hcch.net/en/states/authorities/details3/?aid=279.

[iv] Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), HCCH Practical Handbook on the Operation of the Service Convention, 2016, para. 256.

[v] See Supreme People’s Court, 2021 Conference Summary of the Symposium on Foreign-related Commercial and Maritime Trials of Courts Nationwide [Quanguo Fayuan Shewai Shangshi Haishi Shenpan Gongzuo Zuotanhui Jiyao], Art. 11.

[vi] See Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), HCCH Practical Handbook on the Operation of the Service Convention, 2016, Annex 8, para. 53.

Photo by Rubaitul Azad on Unsplash

On 28 Aug. 2025, China’s Supreme People's Court (SPC) released its 47th batch of guiding cases, marking the first time China’s top court has issued a set specifically focused on the judicial protection of data rights. The six cases cover critical legal frontiers, including data ownership, unfair competition, and personal information protection. As data becomes a core factor of production, data-related litigation in China has surged, with the number of first-instance cases concluded in 2024 doubling compared to 2021. This judicial move aims to standardize rulings in similar cases nationwide and provide clearer legal expectations for the digital economy.

Among them, Guiding Case No. 265, "Luo v. X Company” Privacy and Personal Information Protection Dispute," addresses excessive collection of personal data by apps. The court clarified boundaries for apps collecting user profile information. The English learning software in question required users to input details like occupation and learning goals to log in, without a "skip" option. The court ruled that such information is not essential for providing educational services, and compelling collection under the guise of automated recommendations constitutes overreach. This case establishes a key principle: determining if data processing is "necessary for contract fulfillment" depends on whether omitting the information would prevent core functions from operating.

The release of these cases responds to national policies on building data infrastructure. In 2022, China issued the " Opinions on Building a Basic Data System to Better Leverage Data Elements"(关于构建数据基础制度更好发挥数据要素作用的意见), which emphasized creating compliant and efficient mechanisms for data circulation.

Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

Xiamen's People's Congress passed the Personal Bankruptcy Protection Regulations for the Xiamen Special Economic Zone (“厦门经济特区个人破产保护条例”) on 26 Aug. 2025, with the law taking effect on November 1. This marks the second local personal bankruptcy law in mainland China, following Shenzhen's similar measure that began in March 2021. The legislation aims to fill a long-standing gap in China’s legal system by providing a path for insolvent individuals to reorganize their finances or seek a fresh start.

The law applies to individuals who have lived or operated businesses in Xiamen for at least five consecutive years. If they cannot repay due debts and lack sufficient assets, they may seek reorganization, settlement, or liquidation. Creditors with claims totaling more than five times the city's previous year's per capita disposable income for residents can also initiate applications.

A core tenet of the law is the protection of "honest but unfortunate" debtors. It introduces an exempt asset system, allowing individuals to retain property necessary for basic living and professional development. Additionally, the law provides for the discharge of remaining debts after a designated observation period and includes a specialized chapter on credit restoration. To curb malicious debt evasion, it sets up a public bankruptcy information platform, integrity checks, and stiffer penalties for fraud, including fines or criminal charges for false asset declarations. It also introduces special procedures like pre-court debt resolution, inheritance bankruptcy, and joint spousal bankruptcy, while streamlining reorganization-to-liquidation transitions and cutting costs.

The first application under the new law was recorded on 3 Nov. 2025 by the Xiamen Intermediate People’s Court. The applicant is the founder of a nationally certified high-tech Internet of Things (IoT) firm who faced financial collapse due to pandemic-related disruptions and heightened market competition. After their personal assets and those of their spouse were seized for debt repayment, they sought relief through the new legal framework. The court is currently reviewing the materials and will issue a ruling on the case following a mandatory public notification period.

Mainland China has historically lacked a personal bankruptcy framework. Xiamen's law borrows from the national Enterprise Bankruptcy Law and Shenzhen's model to balance creditor and debtor interests and enable economic recovery for debtors.

Photo by Woo Winter on Unsplash

Key takeaways:

In February 2025, the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Australia, ruled to enforce a Chinese monetary judgment in Yangpu Huigu Pharmaceutical Corporation Limited v He [2025] NSWSC 28.

• The Australian court applied common law principles (as China is not covered by the statutory reciprocity regime) and confirmed that the Chinese judgment met all requirements: jurisdiction, finality, identity of parties, and a fixed sum.
• The decision adopted a practical, creditor-friendly approach to the “identity of parties” requirement, allowing enforcement directly against a guarantor without first pursuing primary debtors, as long as the guarantor is a judgment debtor (i.e., being held jointly and severally liable for the debt by the foreign judgment).

On 6 Feb. 2025, the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Australia (hereinafter the “Australian Court”) ruled to enforce a Chinese monetary judgment in Yangpu Huigu Pharmaceutical Corporation Limited v He [2025] NSWSC 28.[i] The Chinese judgment, numbered 2020 Qiong 96 Min Chu No. 13 ((2020)琼96民初13号), was rendered by the First Intermediate People's Court of Hainan Province (hereinafter the “Chinese Court”) on 30 Nov. 2022.

This is the seventh reported enforcement of a Chinese monetary judgment in Australia, according to the CJO database.

Related Posts:

• Series: Australia-China Judgments Recognition and Enforcement
• Chinese Supreme Court Judgment Enforced by Court of NSW Australia
• A Chinese Judgment Denied Enforcement by Court of NSW Australia, Due to Defective Service by Post?

I. Case Background

The dispute concerned a loan of CNY 6 million lent by the Plaintiff, Yangpu Huigu Pharmaceutical Corporation Limited (洋浦慧谷医药有限公司, hereinafter the “Yangpu Company”), to two borrower companies -one Chinese and one Australian. The Defendant, Mr. Gaogeng He (“Mr. He”) was the director of one borrower, and acted as the guarantor of the loan.

On 2 Jan. 2020, Yangpu Company initiated legal proceedings before the Chinese Court in respect of the loan. Mr. He appeared via audiovisual link and represented himself at the hearing.

On 30 Nov. 2020, the Chinese Court rendered the Judgment 2020 Qiong 96 Min Chu No. 13 (hereinafter the “Chinese Judgment”) in favor of Yangpu Company, holding Mr. He jointly and severally liable for the outstanding amounts. No appeal was lodged, and the judgment remained unsatisfied.

On 16 July 2024, Yangpu Company sought to enforce the Chinese Judgment against Mr. He in New South Wales, Australia.

On 6 Feb. 2025, the Australian Court granted the recognition and enforcement of the Chinese Judgment, ordering Mr. He to pay Yangpu Company the sum of CNY 11,125,042.66.

II. Court Views

In Australia, foreign judgments may be enforced either at common law or pursuant to the statutory regime under the Foreign Judgments Act 1991(Cth). Chinese judgments are not eligible for the statutory regime, as China is not a jurisdiction of substantial reciprocity designated by the Foreign Judgment Regulations 1992 (Cth). Enforcement of Chinese judgments therefore proceeds at common law.

At common law, a foreign judgment, such as the Chinese Judgement, is prima facie capable of recognition and enforcement if the following requirements have been met: (1) the foreign court must have exercised jurisdiction of the requisite type over the defendant (also known as jurisdiction “in the international sense”); (2) the judgment must be final and conclusive; (3) there must be identity of parties between the judgment debtors and the defendants in any enforcement action; and (4) the judgment must be for a fixed, liquidated sum (at [20]). Where the above four conditions have been established, the defendant may only challenge the recognition and enforcement of the foreign judgment on limited grounds. (at [22]).

The Australian Court moved on to review each of the four requirements in details, concluding that all are satisfied. Furthermore, given the defendant has not appeared and has therefore not raised any defense in these proceedings, those considerations do not arise in this case.

III. Comments

This decision illustrates the standard Australian common law approach to enforcing Chinese judgments.

Notably, the court adopted a practical, creditor-friendly interpretation of the “identity of parties” requirement. The Australian Court clarified that a judgment creditor is not required to bring all original debtors into the Australian enforcement action. Specifically, if a guarantor is held jointly liable in China, the judgment creditor can pursue that guarantor individually in Australia. This provides significant flexibility for creditors chasing assets across borders.

As a sidenote, the Australian Court noted an interesting procedural quirk regarding appeal timelines in China.[ii] Under China’s Civil Procedure Law, the standard appeal window is 15 days; however, this is extended to 30 days for parties who do not have a domicile in China. This distinction is vital for foreign litigants to ensure a judgment is truly "final and conclusive" before seeking enforcement abroad.

Related Posts:

• 2+1+1: China's Hierarchical Trial System for Civil Cases
• List of China's Cases on Recognition of Foreign Judgments

[i] China Justice Observer (CJO) thanks Dr. Béligh Elbalti, Associate Professor, Graduate School of Law and Politics, Osaka University, Japan, for sharing a copy of this judgment with us.

[ii] As the Australian Court noted, “[I]nterestingly, the judgment set out 2 different temporal requirements to appeal the matter. The plaintiff was provided with fifteen days to appeal but the defendants were provided with 30 days from the date of the judgment to appeal” (at [30]).

Photo by Joey Csunyo on Unsplash

On 31 July 2025, China’s Ministry of Justice (MOJ) convened a symposium on foreign-related arbitration in Beijing, launching a program to nurture world-class international arbitration institutions with Chinese characteristics. In the first round, 22 arbitration institutions were selected as for targeted development.

China’s arbitration landscape has expanded significantly, now encompassing 285 institutions and a pool of over 60,000 arbitrators, including more than 3,400 experts from overseas. The growing demand for these services is reflected in 2024 data, which shows that 4,373 foreign-related cases were handled nationwide, representing a total disputed value of 197.8 billion yuan. These proceedings are increasingly viewed as essential infrastructure for supporting the country's integration into the global economy.

Since the launch of pilot programs in 2022 across Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, and Hainan, these regions have made substantial strides in building international commercial arbitration centers. Beijing has successfully fostered a comprehensive “ecosystem” for dispute resolution, while Shanghai has advanced local regulations and policy measures and saw a robust growth of 61% in foreign-related cases and 66% in total value between 2022 and 2024. In Guangdong province, the combined case values from Guangzhou and Shenzhen now account for 30% of the national total for foreign-related disputes.

The global standing of Chinese venues continues to rise, according to the “2025 International Arbitration Survey – The Path Forward: Realities and Opportunities in Arbitration” by Queen Mary University of London and White & Case. The report ranks Beijing, Shenzhen, and Shanghai among the world’s top ten most preferred arbitration seats. With major institutions like the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration (SCIA), and the Beijing Arbitration Commission (BAC) each managing annual dispute values exceeding 100 billion yuan, China is rapidly emerging as a leading global destination for commercial dispute resolution.

Photo from sohu

On 10 June 2025, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC), Supreme People’s Procuratorate (SPP), and the Ministry of Public Security jointly issued the “Opinions on Handling Criminal Cases of Refusing to Comply with Judgments and Rulings” (关于办理拒不执行判决、裁定刑事案件若干问题的意见, hereinafter the “Opinions”), which took effect on 1 July 2025.

The Opinions clarify the specific responsibilities of the judiciary, police, and procuratorates in tackling these offenses of refusing to enforce judgments or rulings. Courts that identify suspected cases of non-compliance must transfer the relevant evidence to public security organs for investigation. Police are required to decide whether to formally open a case within seven days, a deadline that can be extended to 30 days for major or complex matters. Meanwhile, procuratorates are tasked with supervising the filing process and initiating public prosecutions. The guidelines also empower applicants (judgment creditors) to file private criminal lawsuits if they can provide evidence that a judgment debtor is intentionally defying a court order.

The Opinions builds upon a Judicial Interpretation that came into effect on 1 Dec. 2024, which sought to address China’s long-standing problem of “difficult enforcement” by refining the legal criteria.

Related Post:

• SPC & SPP Targets Crimes of Refusing to Comply with Court Judgments

Statistics show that in 2023, courts nationwide concluded 9.76 million enforcement cases, with 4,246 offenders convicted of refusal-to-comply crimes. From January to October 2024, the number of offenders rose to 5,289, revealing China’s determination to intensify the crackdown.

Photo by Joshua Fernandez on Unsplash

China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) has established a new Lawyers’ Liaison Office within its Research Office, marking the first time China’s court system has created a dedicated body to manage lawyer-related affairs. The initiative is designed to streamline coordination on matters involving legal practitioners, enhance the protection of their professional rights, and strengthen the judicial safeguarding of human rights.

The new office will serve as a primary bridge between the judiciary, the legal profession, and relevant government departments. Its mandate includes researching policies to safeguard lawyers’ interests, refining institutional mechanisms, and addressing specific concerns referred by lawyers’ associations.

According to the SPC Research Office, the liaison office will also conduct joint research and specialized discussions with the Supreme People's Procuratorate, the Ministry of Public Security, the Ministry of Justice, and the All-China Lawyers Association. These efforts aim to encourage lawyers to practice ethically and in strict accordance with the law while raising overall professional standards.

Courts at all levels have been directed to fully support lawyers in carrying out their duties, maintain open channels for rights remedies, and implement practical measures to protect lawyers' rights and uphold judicial fairness.

Photo by Iewek Gnos on Unsplash

On 27 June 2025, China’s top legislature, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, adopted the newly revised “Law of the People’s Republic of China on Public Security Administration Punishments” (治安管理处罚法(2025修订), hereinafter the “Revision”), which will come into force on 1 Jan. 2026.

This marks the first major overhaul of the law since its implementation in 2005. The revision is designed to address emerging social security challenges, standardize law enforcement procedures, and enhance overall public safety in an evolving social landscape.

The updated law, which comprises 144 articles across six chapters, expands the scope of punishable offenses to address modern legal gaps. It now explicitly prohibits activities such as exam cheating, organizing pyramid schemes, insulting heroes and martyrs, and throwing objects from heights. Additionally, the law introduces new penalties for the abuse of children, the elderly, and the disabled, as well as the illegal sale of personal information, reflecting a heightened focus on protecting the rights of vulnerable populations.

To promote fairer enforcement, the Revision requires police officers to present their official identification, regulates solo officer actions, mandates full audio and video recording for on-site seizures, and improves mediation processes with an emphasis on legality, fairness, and voluntariness. The Revision explicitly recognizes legitimate self-defense, stating that actions to stop an ongoing unlawful assault will not be punished, though excessive force resulting in significant harm may lead to reduced penalties.

The Revision also introduces significant updates to juvenile justice. While it strengthens administrative detention provisions for minors aged 14 to 18 who commit serious or repeated offenses, it simultaneously establishes a record-sealing system for minor violations, which is intended to protect the privacy of minor offenders, reduce social discrimination, and support their reintegration into society.

Photo by Derch on Unsplash

Key takeaways:

• In November 2023, the High Court of New Zealand granted a summary judgment to enforce two Chinese court judgments, one of which was a Chinese mediation judgment (Tian v Xu [2023] NZHC 3259).
• The New Zealand Court held that a civil settlement statement bears the hallmarks of a “consent judgment” because it records a voluntary settlement and becomes enforceable under Chinese law once served on the parties.
• This decision follows precedents in Canada (Wei v Li 2019 BCCA 114) and Australia (Bank of China Limited v Chen [2022] NSWSC 749), reinforcing the growing acceptance of Chinese mediation judgments as “foreign judgments” in common law countries.

On 17 Nov. 2023, the High Court of New Zealand (hereinafter the “New Zealand Court”) granted a summary judgment to enforce two Chinese court judgments, one of which was a Chinese mediation judgment, in Tian v Xu [2023] NZHC 3259.[i] The two PRC judgments were made by the Lubei District Primary People’s Court of Tangshan City, Hebei Province (hereinafter the “Lubei Court”).

This is the first reported case of a New Zealand court recognizing and enforcing a Chinese mediation judgment, also known as a civil settlement statement, or the “Civil Mediation Settlement Agreement Confirmation” as addressed in this case. This is the fourth reported enforcement of a Chinese monetary judgment in New Zealand, according to the CJO database.

Related Posts:

• Series: New Zealand-China Judgments Recognition and Enforcement
• New Zealand Court Enforces Chinese Judgment Despite “Natural Justice” Challenge
• Again! New Zealand Court Enforces Chinese Judgment

I. Case Background

The dispute arose from two loan contracts between the Plaintiff, Mr. Yang Tian (“Mr. Tian”), and the Defendant, Mr. Chen Xu (“Mr. Xu”). From 2015 to 2019, Mr. Tian provided two loans, one to Mr. Xu and the other to Mr. Xu's business associate Nan Zhang. The loan to Mr. Zhang was guaranteed by Mr. Xu.

In July 2021, Mr. Tian sued Mr. Xu in the Lubei Court to recover the amount outstanding on the Xu loans (the Xu proceeding). On 30 Aug. 2021, Mr. Tian and Mr. Xu attended a judicial mediation conducted by the Lubei Court. The parties agreed on the terms of settlement, which were recorded in a document translated as the “Civil Mediation Settlement Agreement Confirmation” (hereinafter the “Confirmation”), issued by the Lubei Court on the same day.

In September 2021, Mr. Tian commenced a separate proceeding against Mr Zhang and Mr. Xu in the Lubei Court, seeking recovery of the outstanding balance on the Zhang loan (the Zhang proceeding). On 18 May 2022, the Lubei Court issued a civil judgment (hereinafter the “Judgment”) document requiring Mr. Zhang to repay the loan of RMB 650,000 to Mr. Tian, together with interest, and recording that Mr. Xu was jointly and severally liable for the debt.

In 2023, Mr. Tian sought to enforce the Confirmation and the Judgment against Mr. Xu in New Zealand. On 26 May 2023, Mr. Tian obtained freezing orders over Mr. Xu’s assets on a without notice basis.[ii]

On 17 Nov. 2023, the New Zealand Court ruled in Mr. Tian's favor.

II. Court Views

The application for summary judgment to enforce the two PRC court judgments (the Confirmation and the Judgment) was sought in New Zealand under the common law.

To start with, the legal test for recognition and enforcement of an unregistered foreign judgment, under common law, comprises three prerequisites: (a) the foreign court must have had jurisdiction to give judgment; (b) the judgment must be for a definite sum of money; and (c) the judgment must be final and conclusive. The judgment creditor bears the burden of establishing such prerequisites (at [15]-[16]).

If this test is met, recognition may be denied, where: (a) the judgment was obtained by fraud; (b) enforcement of the judgment would be contrary to public policy; or (c) the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained were contrary to natural justice. A foreign judgment is not otherwise impeachable on its merits for error of fact or law. Such burden lies on the party seeking to impeach the judgment (judgment debtor) (at [17]-[18]).

To impeach the PRC court judgments, Mr. Xu, the judgment debtor, filed a notice of opposition and affidavit opposing recognition of the judgments on the grounds that the PRC courts that issued the judgments are not courts of judicature; the judgments are not final and conclusive; and the proceedings involved breaches of natural justice.

With detailed analysis, the New Zealand Court rejected all of Mr. Xu’s claims for lack of particularized or sufficient evidence. Among others, the Court treated the Confirmation as equivalent to a consent judgment: it recorded a voluntary settlement, was issued and served by the court, and carried the same enforceability as a judgment under Chinese law.

III. Comments

“Hooray!” cheer the judgment creditors who wish to have enforced in New Zealand the PRC civil settlement statements, or “Civil Mediation Settlement Agreement Confirmation” as addressed in this case.

It is always encouraging to see how Chinese legal institutions are gradually understood in common law jurisdictions. Back in 2016, it was not so promising, as in Shi Wen Yue v Shi Minjiu & Anor [2016] SGHC 137, 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. Nevertheless, positive views from other common law jurisdictions have emerged since 2019. In Canada, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia upheld the trial ruling to enforce a Chinese civil settlement statement (Wei v. Li 2019 BCCA 114), referred to such a document as the ‘Civil Mediation Paper’, and took it as an equivalent of a Chinese judgment. In 2022,  the New South Wales Supreme Court of Australia ruled to recognize two Chinese civil settlement statements (Bank of China Limited v Chen [2022] NSWSC 749), confirming its status as ‘foreign judgments’ under Australian law.

This time, the New Zealand Court followed its Canadian and Australian counterparts on the nature of the civil settlement statement, affirming its enforceability as a court judgment.

The consent judgment seems to be a proper analogy. As the New Zealand Court pointed out, the civil settlement statement bears the hallmarks of a consent judgment and became enforceable as a judgment after it was served on the parties. Such court reasoning aligns perfectly with the Chinese legal framework, under which civil settlement statements are made by Chinese courts upon the settlement arrangement reached by the parties and confirmed by the courts, and do enjoy the same enforceability as court judgments once served on the parties.

One lesson learnt on the translation point, perhaps it is better for litigants to use the "Mediation Judgment", rather than names such as “civil settlement statements” or “civil mediation paper”.

Related Posts:

• The First Time Australia Recognizes Chinese Civil Settlement Statements (Bank of China Limited v Chen [2022] NSWSC 749)
• Canadian Court Enforces Chinese Civil Settlement Statement/Mediation Judgment in 2019 (Wei v. Li 2019 BCCA 114)
• Chinese Civil Settlement Statements: Enforceable in Singapore? (Shi Wen Yue v Shi Minjiu & Anor [2016] SGHC 137)

[i] China Justice Observer (CJO) thanks Mr. Thomas Westaway, Partner at Campbell Westaway, for sharing a copy of this judgment with us. We also thank Mr. Westaway for alerting us to the development in New Zealand, including Guangzhou Dongjiang Petroleum Science & Technology Development Co Ltd v Kang [2020] NZHC 3068, and Royal v Zheng [2025] NZHC 1395.

[ii] Tian v Xu [2023] NZHC 1261. 

Photo by Sulthan Auliya on Unsplash

Photo by Anna Coco (@acoco) on Unsplash

On 31 December 2025, China Justice Observer released the 2025 version of the List of China’s Cases on Recognition of Foreign Judgments. To date, we have collected 120 cases involving China and 26 foreign States and regions. (Note: Foreign divorce judgments are excluded in the Case List.)

The key features of the updated list are:

• The List comprises 26 concise reports for each jurisdiction, together with a chart of bilateral judicial assistance treaties which China has concluded with 39 States, of which 35 bilateral treaties include judgment enforcement clauses.
• A total of eleven newly added cases involve one treaty jurisdiction – Uzbekistan (one case), and five non-treaty jurisdictions, namely, Australia (one case), New Zealand (four cases), Singapore (two cases), South Korea (two cases), and the United States (one case).
• Please note that Tian v Xu [2023] NZHC 3259 marks the first reported instance of a New Zealand court recognizing and enforcing a Chinese civil settlement statement (also known as a mediation judgment). By treating such instruments as equivalent to consent judgments, the New Zealand High Court has adopted a pro-enforcement approach consistent with precedents in Canada (Wei v Li 2019 BCCA 114) and Australia (Bank of China Limited v Chen [2022] NSWSC 749), providing a clear contrast to the earlier restrictive view expressed in Singapore (Shi Wen Yue v Shi Minjiu & Anor [2016] SGHC 137).
• Another noteworthy case is Sunvalley Solar Inc. v Baoding Tianwei Solarfilms Co. Ltd. (2019) Ji 01 Xie Wai Ren No. 3, where a Chinese court refused to enforce a U.S. default judgment rendered in breach of a valid arbitration agreement. By holding that a defendant’s absence does not constitute an implied waiver, the Chinese court shielded arbitration clauses from being bypassed via foreign default judgments.
• Other newly added cases, be it foreign judgments to be enforced in China or Chinese judgments to be enforced in foreign jurisdictions, provide a valuable comparative perspective on key issues in the eyes of courts from different jurisdictions, such as reciprocity ( e.g., the de jure reciprocity applied by a Beijing court in enforcing a South Korean IP judgment, the reciprocal consensus confirmed by a Shanghai court in enforcing a Singapore monetary judgment), natural justice (New Zealand), ascertainment and interpretation of foreign law (Singapore, Australia).
• Each case has been reviewed, and more details, such as the grounds, the case numbers, and causes of action, have been added.
• Case analyses have been aggregated under the country tags since 2022, so it is now easier to track down relevant cases, together with their information and analyses, in each country/region report. For example, under the tag ‘US-China Judgments Recognition and Enforcement’, one can find relevant case analyses involving mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments between the US and China.

We would like to thank the following persons/institutions that shared thoughts and valuable information with us:

• Dr. Béligh Elbalti, Associate Professor, Graduate School of Law and Politics, Osaka University, Japan
• Dr. ZHANG Wenliang (张文亮), Associate Professor, School of Law, Renmin University of China
• Dr. SU Xiaoling(苏晓凌), Lawyer at Beijing DHH Law Firm 
• Mr. WANG Chengjie (王成杰), Lawyer at Allbright Law Offices (Shanghai)
• Wonbanglaw (万邦法律）
• Ms. Renee M Wong, Attorney at Goldberger and Dubin PC (New York)
• Dr. WANG Yahan (王雅菡), Associate Professor, Henan University School of Law
• Mr. Angus Ni, Litigation attorney at AFN Law PLLC (Seattle)
• Asian Business Law Institute
• Ms. Dawei Gongsun, Partner at DGW Kramer LLP (New York)
• Mr. Thomas Westaway, Partner at Campbell Westaway (New Zealand)

As always, we endeavor to collect all Chinese court decisions involving the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments (“REFJ”), and foreign counterparts concerning the recognition and enforcement of Chinese judgments. The Case List is made available for our readers to build reasonable expectations on REFJ in China.

The Case List is continually updated with new reports. Case information, comments, and suggestions are most welcome. Please feel free to contact Ms. Meng YU via e-mail at meng.yu@chinajusticeobserver.com.

For an overview of the disposition of cases on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments between China and treaty-jurisdictions (Italy, France, Turkey, Russia, etc.) and those between China and non-treaty-jurisdictions (USA, Germany, Singapore, South Korea, etc.), please see the tables below.

For information about bilateral judicial assistance treaties that China and 39 States have concluded, please see the table below.

(For the List of China's Bilateral Treaties on Judicial Assistance in Civil and Commercial Matters (Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Included), please click here. Authoritative texts in Chinese and other languages are now available.）

For the detailed country(region) reports about cases on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, please see the following charts. 

Case information, comments, and suggestions are most welcome. Please feel free to contact Ms. Meng YU via e-mail at meng.yu@chinajusticeobserver.com.

1. America (USA) – China

To date, there are 23 court decisions involving the REFJ between China and the United States of America. 

For more information, see case analyses under the tag ‘US-China Judgments Recognition and Enforcement’.

2. Australia - China

To date, there are 10 court decisions involving the REFJ between China and Australia. 

For more information, see case analyses under the tag ‘Australia-China Judgments Recognition and Enforcement’.

3. Belarus- China

To date, there are 2 court decisions involving the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments (“REFJ”) between China and Belarus. 

For more information, see case analyses under the tag ‘Belarus-China Judgments Recognition and Enforcement’.

4. British Virgin Islands (BVI) - China

To date, there is one court decision involving the REFJ between China and the British Virgin Islands (BVI). 

5. Canada - China

To date, there are 5 court decisions involving the REFJ between China and Canada. 

For more information, see case analyses under the tag ‘Canada-China Judgments Recognition and Enforcement’.

6. Chad - China

To date, there is one court decision involving the REFJ between China and Chad. 

7. France - China

To date, there are 6 court decisions involving the REFJ between China and France.

For more information, see case analyses under the tag ‘France-China Judgments Recognition and Enforcement’.

8. Germany - China

To date, there are 6 court decisions involving the REFJ between China and Germany.

For more information, see case analyses under the tag ‘Germany-China Judgments Recognition and Enforcement’.

9. Israel - China

To date, there are 2 court decisions involving the REFJ between China and Israel.

For more information, see case analyses under the tag ‘Israel-China Judgments Recognition and Enforcement’.

10. Italy - China

To date, there are 5 court decisions involving the REFJ between China and Italy.

For more information, see case analyses under the tag ‘Italy-China Judgments Recognition and Enforcement’.

11. Japan - China

To date, there are 7 court decisions involving the REFJ between China and Japan.

For more information, see case analyses under the tag ‘Japan-China Judgments Recognition and Enforcement’.

12. Kenya- China

To date, there is one court decision involving the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments (“REFJ”) between China and Kenya.

For more information, see case analyses under the tag ‘Kenya-China Judgments Recognition and Enforcement’.

13. Malaysia - China

To date, there are 2 court decisions involving the REFJ between China and Malaysia.

For more information, see case analyses under the tag 'Malaysia-China Judgments Recognition and Enforcement'.

14. Myanmar- China

To date, there is one court decision involving the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments (“REFJ”) between China and Myanmar.

For more information, see case analyses under the tag ‘Myanmar-China Judgments Recognition and Enforcement’.

15. Netherlands - China

To date, there is one court decision involving the REFJ between China and the Netherlands.

For more information, see case analyses under the tag ‘Netherlands-China Judgments Recognition and Enforcement’.

16. New Zealand- China

To date, there are 7 court decisions involving the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments (“REFJ”) between China and New Zealand.

For more information, see case analyses under the tag ‘New Zealand-China Judgments Recognition and Enforcement’.

17. Poland - China

To date, there are 2 court decisions involving the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments (“REFJ”) between China and Poland.

For more information, see case analyses under the tag ‘Poland-China Judgments Recognition and Enforcement’.

18. Russia - China

To date, there are 2 court decisions involving the REFJ between China and Russia.

For more information, see case analyses under the tag ‘Russia-China Judgments Recognition and Enforcement’.

19. Singapore - China

To date, there are 10 court decisions involving the REFJ between China and Singapore.

For more information, see case analyses under the tag ‘Singapore-China Judgments Recognition and Enforcement’.

20. South Korea - China

To date, there are 13 court decisions involving the REFJ between China and South Korea. More specifically:

For more information, see case analyses under the tag ‘South Korea-China Judgments Recognition and Enforcement’.

21. Thailand - China

To date, there is 1 court decision involving the REFJ between China and Thailand.

For more information, see case analyses under the tag ‘Thailand-China Judgments Recognition and Enforcement’.

22. Turkey - China

To date, there is one court decision involving the REFJ between China and Turkey.

23. UAE - China

To date, there are three court decisions involving the REFJ between China and the UAE.

For more information, see case analyses under the tag ‘UAE-China Judgments Recognition and Enforcement’.

24. UK - China

To date, there are 4 court decisions involving the REFJ between China and the UK.

For more information, see case analyses under the tag ‘UK-China Judgments Recognition and Enforcement’.

25. Uzbekistan - China

To date, there are 3 court decisions involving the REFJ between China and Uzbekistan.

For more information, see case analyses under the tag ‘Uzbekistan-China Judgments Recognition and Enforcement’.

26. Vietnam - China

To date, there is one court decision involving the REFJ between China and Vietnam.

For more information, see case analyses under the tag ‘Vietnam-China Judgments Recognition and Enforcement’.

 *  *  * 

If you would like to discuss with us about the post, or share your views and suggestions, please contact Ms. Meng Yu (meng.yu@chinajusticeobserver.com). If you would like to acquire the full text of these decisions, please also contact Ms. Meng Yu.

If you need legal services for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards in China, please contact Mr. Guodong Du (guodong.du@chinajusticeobserver.com ). Du and his team of experienced attorneys will be able to assist you.

If you wish to receive news and gain deep insights into the Chinese judicial system, please feel free to subscribe to our newsletters (subscribe.chinajusticeobserver.com ).

On 27 June 2025, China’s top legislature, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, adopted the “Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People’s Republic of China (2025 Revision)” (反不当竞争法(2025修订, hereinafter the “ Revision”), which came into force on 15 Oct. 2025.

This marks the second major revision of the law since its enactment in 1993, following its first revision in 2017. The updates aim to adapt to the developments of the digital economy and maintain orderly market competition.

The Revision adds eight new provisions, bringing the total to 41 articles, with a focus on unfair practices in the online sector, such as data theft, malicious trading, and reverse fake transactions. For example, the Revision prohibits operators from fraudulently obtaining others’ data by bypassing technical protections and forbids abuse of platform rules for fake reviews, fake transactions, or malicious returns that harm other businesses and consumers.

Regarding platform responsibilities, the Revision requires platform operators not to force or coerce merchants to sell goods below cost, preventing predatory pricing that disrupts market stability.

In addition, the Revision for the first time introduces regulations against the “abuse of relative dominant position” by large enterprises. This allows authorities to penalize big firms that impose unreasonable payment terms or withhold payments to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) without the need to first prove a traditional market dominance.

Photo by Joshua Fernandez on Unsplash

Key takeaways:

• In March 2025, China’s Suzhou Intermediate People's Court recognized and enforced a Singapore High Court monetary judgment in Golden Barley International Pte Ltd v Xiao (2023) Su 05 Xie Wai Ren No. 8.
• This case is the first to utilize the MOU on Foreign Law (effective April 2022) to request information and opinion on Singapore law from Singapore courts.
• The CNY 500 application fee, charged on a per-piece fee standard in this case, contrasting with percentage-based fees in some other cases, highlights cost variability that may impact strategic building in cross-border enforcement.

On 14 March 2025, the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangsu Province, China (the “Suzhou Court”) issued a ruling recognizing and enforcing a Singapore monetary judgment in the case of Golden Barley International Pte Ltd v Xiao (2023) Su 05 Xie Wai Ren No. 8 ((2023) 苏05协外认8号). The Singapore judgment, with file number HC/JUD47/2023, was made by the High Court of Singapore in the case of HC/S 194/2022 on 14 Feb 2023.

Just two months ago, another Singapore monetary judgment was recognized and enforced by a Shanghai court (see Zhao v Ye (2023) Hu 01 Xie Wai Ren No. 28), which has confirmed a “reciprocal consensus” between China and Singapore, based on the China-Singapore Memorandum of Guidance on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Commercial Cases (the “MOG on Foreign Judgments”).

This time, another MOU document, the China-Singapore Memorandum of Understanding on Information on Foreign Law (the “MOU on Foreign Law”), made its debut in a public court ruling and played a significant role in facilitating the recognition and enforcement of the Singapore judgment.

In this case, the Chinese courts, for the first time, initiated procedures under the MOU on Foreign Law to ascertain relevant Singapore law and received a positive response from the Singapore courts, ensuring an accurate understanding and application of Singapore law. The case was also selected as one of the fifth batch of typical cases related to the Belt and Road Initiative, released on September 25, 2025.

Related Posts:

• Beyond the Memorandum: Shanghai Court Enforces Singapore Judgment by Confirming “Reciprocal Consensus” Under China’s New Framework
• Singapore-China Judgments Recognition and Enforcement
• Again! Chinese Court Recognizes a Singapore Judgment
• Chinese Court Recognizes Singaporean Judgment Again: No Bilateral Treaty But Only Memorandum?

I.Case background

In March 2022, Golden Barley International Pte Ltd (“Golden Barley”) filed a lawsuit in the Singapore High Court against seven defendants, including Chinese nationals Ms. Lin and Ms. Xiao, seeking repayment of USD 6.65 million due to a contract dispute.

The Singapore High Court served Ms. Lin and Ms. Xiao through judicial assistance and scheduled a hearing for Ms. Lin on September 22, 2022. As Ms. Lin failed to appear, the court issued judgment No. 411/2022 under Order 13 of the Rules of Court of Singapore (the “ROC 2014”),[i] ordering her to pay USD 6.65 million. A hearing for Ms. Xiao was scheduled on February 14, 2023. As Ms. Xiao also failed to appear, the court issued the Judgment HC/JUD47/2023 under the same order, ordering her to pay USD 6.65 million.

On 16 Aug. 2023, Golden Barley applied to the Suzhou Court of Jiangsu Province, the place of Ms. Xiao’s domicile, for recognition and enforcement of the Singapore High Court Judgment HC/JUD47/2023 (hereinafter the “Singapore Judgment”).

On 14 Mar. 2025, the Suzhou Court ruled to recognize and enforce the Singapore Judgment. The application fee of CNY 500 was borne by the respondent (judgment debtor) Ms. Xiao.

II. Court views

The Suzhou Court held that, since the signing of the MOG on Foreign Judgments on 31 Aug. 2018, courts in both countries have mutually recognized and enforced civil judgments, establishing reciprocity between China and Singapore for such purposes. The case could thus be reviewed under the principle of reciprocity. Recognition and enforcement of a foreign civil judgment by a Chinese court requires that the judgment be legally effective. Article 7 of the MOG on Foreign Judgments states that a Singapore court judgment to be recognized and enforced in China “must be a final and conclusive judgment”.

The key issue in this case was whether the Singapore Judgment—a default judgment against Ms. Xiao (one of seven defendants)—was final and conclusive.

Based on the legal opinion provided by the Singapore Supreme Court in its “Reply to the Request for Ascertainment of Law and Opinion,” the claim against Ms. Xiao was for a liquidated demand, and she failed to enter an appearance after proper service. Thus, the judgment under Order 13 was effective and enforceable from the date of issuance. Additionally, a plaintiff may obtain a default judgment against the defendant while proceeding with the action against other defendants; the default judgment's finality is independent of subsequent rulings against other defendants. Unless set aside by the court upon the defendant's application, the default judgment is final and conclusive, binding on the defendant. Accordingly, the Suzhou Court ruled to recognize and enforce the Singapore Judgment.

III. Comments

The highlight of this case is the ascertainment of foreign law under the MOG mechanism. It marks the first instance since the MOU on Foreign Law took effect in April 2022, where a Chinese court initiated procedures to ascertain Singapore law.

The case involved interpreting the finality of the judgment and Singapore's Rules of Court. On October 18, 2024, the Suzhou Court submitted a request for legal ascertainment under the MOU on Foreign Law. Pursuant to Article 4 of the MOU, China's Supreme People's Court forwarded the request to the Singapore Supreme Court. On December 10, 2024, the Singapore Supreme Court issued its “Reply to the Request for Ascertainment of Law and Opinion.” This reply opined on whether the Singapore Judgment was final and conclusive, and attached the full text of Rule 1 of Order 13 of ROC 2014, aiding the Chinese court's understanding.

Within just two months, the relevant Singapore law was ascertained, clearly supported by the MOU on Foreign Law as a cooperative mechanism for ascertaining foreign law.

Additionally, it is noteworthy that the application fee in this case was only CNY 500, reflecting the per-piece fee standard applied by some Chinese courts in foreign judgment recognition cases. This contrasts sharply with the fee of CNY 43,196.34 in the Shanghai court's recognition of a Singapore judgment two months earlier (see Zhao v Ye (2023) Hu 01 Xie Wai Ren No. 28), which was calculated as a percentage of the enforcement amount. Which approach represents the mainstream practice in Chinese courts?

The question of how to calculate and pay application fees in foreign judgment recognition and enforcement cases concerns more than just money; it also directly affects strategic decisions by applicants. For more discussion on this matter, see the post “Guess How Much? 2025 Update on Expenses for Enforcing Foreign Judgments in China”.

Another commentary on this case can be found HERE on the website of the Asian Business Law Institute (ABLI).

[i] The Rules of Court of Singapore (Cap. 322, R 5, 2014 Rev. Ed.) (“ROC 2014”). ORDER 13, DEFAULT OF APPEARANCE TO WRIT, “Claim for liquidated demand (O.13, r. 1) 1.(1) Where a writ is endorsed with a claim against a defendant for a liquidated demand only, then, if that defendant fails to enter an appearance, the plaintiff may, after the time limited for appearing. enter final judgment against that defendant for a sum not exceeding that claimed by the writ in respect of the demand and for costs, and proceed with the action against the other defendants, if any. (2)A claim shall not be prevented from being treated for the purposes of this Rule as a claim for a liquidated demand by reason only that part of the claim is for interest accruing after the date of the writ at an unspecified rate, but any such interest shall be computed from the date of the writ to the date of entering judgment at the rate of6% per annum or at such other rate as the Chief Justice may from time to time direct.”

Photo by CHUTTERSNAP on Unsplash

China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) has launched a pilot program for electronic apostilles. On 18 June 2025, the initiative began with the goal of streamlining procedures for cross-border document circulation, offering efficient and convenient services to Chinese and foreign citizens and businesses. This builds on reforms following China's implementation in 2023 of the Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents, which simplifies the traditional consular "double authentication" process into a single-step apostille.

The pilot initially focuses on certificates of origin issued by the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT), with plans to extend it to other public documents in the future. The program operates entirely online, enabling applicants to submit simultaneous requests for certificates of origin and electronic apostilles via the CCPIT’s “CCPIT Service” platform (www.rzccpit.com), eliminating the need for in-person procedures. Electronic apostilles carry the same legal weight as physical versions, allow for online verification, and substantially cut down on time and costs.

From January to May 2025, the national CCPIT system issued 3.1312 million commercial certificates, marking a 15.58% year-on-year increase and highlighting robust activity among foreign trade enterprises.

photo from Baidu

Key takeaways:

• The dual-track charging standards for court fees in enforcing foreign judgments in China persist, with consistent application across courts: per-piece (up to CNY 500) for recognition or non-monetary cases, and progressive based on the judgment amount for combined R&E.  
• For monetary judgments, the step-by-step approach (recognition first) limits the initial fee to a maximum of CNY 500, compared to potentially over CNY 1 million under the R&E approach, as seen in the 2021 Power Solar System case. 
• The step-by-step method treats enforcement as based on a Chinese ruling, eliminating the need for prepayment of enforcement fees, which are instead deducted from recovered amounts. 
• Additional benefits of the step-by-step approach include potentially avoiding the two-year limitation period for enforcement, though it may limit access to preservation measures like asset freezing, pending further clarification in Chinese judicial practice.

How much is the court fee for enforcing a foreign monetary judgment in China? Is it CNY 500 per case, or a larger amount based on the judgment claim? 

The quick answer is “It depends”. In most cases, the court fee, also known as the “application fee”, depends on whether “enforcement” is sought at the same time as “recognition”.

In January 2021, we did a research on the time and expenses for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in China. Based on our CJO’s Case List, we concluded that “dual-track charging standards” were applied, one is a progressive fee system based on the amount in controversy, and the other is charged on a per-piece basis. That explained why court fees were up to CNY 146,607 in some cases, but only CNY 500 in many others. Moreover, there seemed to be some inconsistency among Chinese courts.

Four years later, our updated research from May 2025 shows that “dual-track charging standards” remain today, but a clearer pattern has emerged, showing that the rules on courts are clear and Chinese courts are applying the rules consistently.

I. Calculation of application fees

The basic principle for calculating application fees is as follows: if there is no monetary obligation, fees are charged per case; if there is a monetary obligation, fees are charged on a progressive scale based on the amount in controversy.

According to the “Measures for the Payment of Litigation Fees” (诉讼费用交纳办法), in cases involving applications for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, if there is no amount to be enforced, the fee is charged on a per-piece basis of CNY 50-500. If there is an amount to be enforced, the fee is calculated using a progressive system, as detailed below (Table 1 - Application Fee Schedule).

Table 1 - Application Fee Schedule

Note: Applicants can choose either the Recognition and Enforcement approach (hereinafter the “R&E approach”) or the step-by-step approach. The step-by-step approach means first applying for recognition of the foreign judgment, and then applying for enforcement of the recognized judgment after the Chinese court grants recognition. The fee differs depending on whether a monetary obligation is involved.

1. If the foreign judgment does not involve a monetary obligation (e.g., a foreign judgment ordering a change in IP ownership), there is no difference in fees between the R&E and step-by-step approaches.

2. If the foreign judgment involves a monetary obligation, the step-by-step approach is more advantageous for the applicant. Under the step-by-step approach, the court charges on a per-piece basis, which is no more than CNY 500. In contrast, under the R&E approach, the fee will necessarily exceed CNY 500 once the judgment claim exceeds CNY 40,000. 

Based on our research, the highest publicly available application fee on record is CNY 1,464,869.27, incurred in the 2021 Power Solar System case, which is calculated on a R&E approach. (see Power Solar System Co., Ltd. v. Suntech Power Investment Pte. Ltd. (2019) Hu 01 Xie Wai Ren No. 22). In this case, the Shanghai First Intermediate People’s Court recognized and enforced a monetary judgment issued by a Singaporean court. The judgment claim was CNY 1,397,469,266, and the application fee was calculated under the highest tier in the fee schedule: CNY 1,464,869.27 (= 0.1% × the judgment claim + 67,400).

In contrast, had the applicant in this case chosen the step-by-step approach and applied only for recognition of the Singaporean judgment, the application fee would have been at most CNY 500.

II. Is the step-by-step approach the optimal strategy?

In the aforementioned Power Solar System case, the application fee under the R&E approach exceeded CNY one million. Had the applicant used the step-by-step approach, the fee would have been at most CNY 500.

So, does this mean that the step-by-step approach is the best strategy for applicants?

In principle, YES.

First of all, in terms of application fees, the primary advantage of the step-by-step approach is that applicants do not need to prepay the high, proportionally calculated application fee. In Chinese courts, application fees must be paid for the enforcement application, but whether the applicant must prepay the fee depends on whether the enforcement involves a Chinese judgment or a foreign one.

If the enforcement is based on a Chinese judgment, the applicant does not need to prepay the application fee. The court will deduct the application fee from any recovered amount during enforcement, and it is the judgment debtor that pays the fee. In contrast, if the enforcement is based on a foreign judgment, the applicant must prepay the application fee.[1] 

Under the step-by-step approach, the applicant first obtains a Chinese court ruling recognizing the foreign judgment. Then, enforcement is sought based on that Chinese court ruling. In this case, the application fee is treated as if it were the enforcement of a Chinese judgment—i.e., no prepayment is required.

In contrast, under the R&E approach, the enforcement is sought based on a foreign judgment, so the application fee must be prepaid by the applicant.

Consider the 2019 Oceanside Development Group case, for example. The Wenzhou Intermediate People’s Court in Zhejiang (the Court) ruled to recognize a Singapore monetary judgment. Although the Singaporean judgment determined a monetary obligation of over GBP 2 million, the applicant took the step-by-step approach, applying only for recognition (not R&E) and paying an application fee of CNY 500. After obtaining the recognition ruling from the Court, in December 2019, the applicant applied for enforcement at the Court. Since the enforcement was now based on a Chinese court ruling, the application fee was deducted from the recovered amount by the Court. Ultimately, the Court only enforced CNY 1,137.58, from which CNY 50 was deducted as the application fee, and the remaining CNY 1,087.58 was released to the applicant. (see Enforcement Order (2019) Zhe 03 Zhi No. 2126-1 ((2019)浙03执2126号之一)).

Furthermore, we noted that in certain cases (such as the above Oceanside Development Group case), the step-by-step approach may also help applicants circumvent the two-year limitation period. This is another significant bonus for applicants choosing the step-by-step approach.

Related Post:

• Missing 2-Year Limitation Period? Chinese Court Refuses to Enforce a South Korean Judgment

That said, some applicants may be concerned that the step-by-step approach could affect their ability to obtain preservation measures (e.g., asset freezing orders) from Chinese courts. If they only apply for recognition of a foreign judgment, would this prevent them from seeking preservation measures from Chinese courts, thereby missing the best opportunity to stop the judgment debtor from dissipating assets? This concern remains subject to further evaluation. Currently, Chinese law does not provide clear rules on whether preservation measures are available in cases involving the recognition of foreign judgments, except for Article 39 of the “2021 Conference Summary of the Symposium on Foreign-related Commercial and Maritime Trials of Courts Nationwide” (全国法院涉外商事海事审判工作座谈会会议纪要). So far, the judicial practice allowing preservation has arisen only in R&E cases. Therefore, whether preservation measures are available in recognition-only cases (i.e., under the step-by-step approach) requires further clarification through future cases.

Related Post:

• Can Applicant Seek Interim Measures from Chinese Courts? - Breakthrough for Collecting Judgments in China Series (IX)

____________________________

[1] See Articles 10, 14, 20, and 38 of the “Measures for the Payment of Litigation Fees”; Article 23 of the “Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Enforcement of People’s Courts (For Trial Implementation)” (最高人民法院关于人民法院执行工作若干问题的规定(试行)); and Articles 2 and 4 of the “Notice on Applying the Measures for the Payment of Litigation Fees” (适用诉讼费用交纳办法的通知).

In December 2024, the Beijing Fourth Intermediate People’s Court (the “Beijing Court”) ruled to recognize and enforce two South Korean trademark judgments (See SD Biotechnologies Co. Ltd v. LAP F&C (2022) Jing 04 Xie Wai Ren No.23-1 ((2022) 京04协外认23号之一)). One of the Korean judgments was issued by the Korean Supreme Court (case no. 2021Da273271), and the other was rendered by the Seoul Central District Court (case no 2019GaHap538710).

This is the second reported case of a Korean IP-related judgment being recognized in China, according to the CJO database, following the one from four years ago in SD Biotechnologies Co. Ltd v. 99 Trade Co. Ltd (2019) Jing 04 Xie Wai Ren No.3 ((2019)京04协外认3号).

Coincidentally, the two cases have many similarities. Both involve the same applicant, SD Biotechnologies (the parent company of the popular Korean skincare brand SNP), and the same Chinese court greenlighted both for the recognition and enforcement of Korean trademark judgments.

Though the full text of the judgment has not yet been made publicly available, we can get a rough picture of this case from the Beijing Court’s news report, the court’s public notices on the People's Daily (Overseas Edition), together with the Junhe Law Office’s “2024 Junhe Business Research Report” published on 1 July 2025.

Related Post:

• China Enforces Foreign Intellectual Property Judgment for the First Time

1. Case background

Both the applicant, SD Biotechnologies Co., Ltd, and the respondent, LAP F&C, are South Korean companies. The case involves 38 trademarks registered with Chinese administrative authorities.

SD Biotechnologies and Mr. C, the founder and actual controller of LAP F&C, signed an Executive Agreement providing that all inventions, patents, registered trademarks, and other intellectual property developed by Mr. C during his tenure would belong to SD Biotechnologies. LAP F&C was the holder of the disputed trademarks. The parties also entered into a Supplementary Agreement, under which Mr. C transferred ownership of a brand and all its products to SD Biotechnologies in exchange for payment. However, after receiving the payment, LAP F&C failed to transfer the registered trademarks. Consequently, SD Biotechnologies filed suit before the Seoul Central District Court, seeking an order requiring LAP F&C to transfer the trademark ownership as stipulated in the agreements.

On 5 June 2020, the Seoul Central District Court issued a civil judgment on the request for trademark transfer registration, supporting SD Biotechnologies' claim for trademark transfer. Dissatisfied with part of the first-instance judgment, LAP F&C appealed to the Korean Patent Court.

On 19 Aug. 2021, the Korean Patent Court issued a second-instance judgment, upholding the trademark transfer ruling. Dissatisfied with the second-instance judgment, LAP F&C filed an appeal to the Korean Supreme Court.

On 30 Dec. 2021, the Korean Supreme Court issued a third-instance judgment, rejecting LAP F&C's appeal. This judgment became final and effective.

According to the Korean judgments, LAP F&C should transfer all the involved trademarks registered in China to SD Biotechnologies. Given that the trademark change registration procedures need to be handled at the China National Intellectual Property Administration, SD Biotechnologies applied to the Beijing Court for recognition and enforcement of the Korean judgments.

In December 2024, the Beijing Court ruled to recognize and enforce the two Korean judgments—the judgment of the Korean Supreme Court (case no. 2021Da273271), and that of the Seoul Central District Court (case no 2019GaHap538710).

2. Court views

The Beijing Court noted that China and the Republic of Korea have not concluded or jointly participated in any international treaty on the mutual recognition and enforcement of court judgments,[i] so the review should be based on the principle of reciprocity.

After ascertaining that civil and commercial judgments issued by Chinese courts “can be recognized and enforced in the Republic of Korea in accordance with the Korean laws”, the court determined that “a de jure reciprocity relationship exists” between China and Korea.

Upon examination, the said Korean judgments do not violate the basic principles of Chinese law or the state sovereignty, security, or public interests. After reporting to the Supreme People's Court for approval, the Beijing Court ruled to recognize and enforce the Korean judgments.

3. Comments

Reciprocity seems to be an eternal theme in the very field of foreign judgments recognition and enforcement. It is especially true for three East Asia jurisdictions- China, South Korea, and Japan.

Reciprocity seems to be an eternal theme in the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, particularly among the three East Asian jurisdictions: China, South Korea, and Japan.

Interestingly, on the issue of reciprocity, Sino-Japanese relation and Sino-Korean relation present a stark contrast—one negative, the other positive.

On one hand, a vicious cycle of deadlock has long persisted between China and Japan. For a considerable period (and some argue even to this day), the Sino-Japanese impasse due to reciprocity has remained unbreakable, with no substantial progress in the recognition and enforcement of monetary judgments between the two sides. Whether the recent breakthrough in bankruptcy (In re Shanghai International Corporation (2021) Hu 03 Xie Wai Ren No.1) can serve as a key to breaking this deadlock remains to be seen.

Related Posts:

• Some Thoughts on the Sino-Japanese Reciprocal Recognition Dilemma in Light of the Recent Developments in the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in China 
• Decoding the Turning Point: A Closer Look at China’s Recognition of Japanese Bankruptcy

On the other hand, the reciprocal relationship between China and South Korea, after an early period of uncertainty, has steadily improved since 2019. The early relationship was fraught with ambiguity, and once teetered on the brink of collapse. In 2011 and 2015, the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court and Shenyang Intermediate People’s Court in China rejected two Korean judgments on the grounds of lacking reciprocity.[ii] In contrast, as early as 1999, the Seoul District Court in Korea recognized a Chinese court judgment,[iii] and in 2015, the Ansan Branch of the Suwon District Court again recognized a Chinese judgment[iv]—likely without knowledge of the aforementioned Shenzhen and Shenyang decisions or the stance of Chinese courts. As Prof. Kwang Hyun Suk pointed out, “if the Korean judges had known the position of the Chinese courts which refused to recognize a Korean judgment, they would have also refused to recognize the Chinese judgment in question”.[v] Whether due to the lag in judicial information exchange at that time, the “insensitivity” of Korean courts or the parties' lawyers, or the timely follow-up by Chinese courts upon discovering that Korean courts had already taken the first step, in 2019, the Qingdao Intermediate People’s Court in China confirmed the existence of reciprocity between China and South Korea,[vi] reversing the situation. In 2019, the Daegu High Court in Korea recognized and enforced a Chinese judgment; [vii]in 2020, the Shanghai No.1 Intermediate Court and Beijing Fourth Intermediate Court successively recognized and enforced Korean judgments based on reciprocity,[viii] solidifying the reciprocal relationship between China and South Korea and fostering a positive cycle.

Related Posts:

• Chinese Court First Recognizes a South Korean Judgment: Another Sign of Door Open for Foreign Judgments
• The Second Time China Recognizes a South Korean Judgment
• South Korea-China Judgments Recognition and Enforcement

In China, the reciprocity standard has been progressively liberalized since the late last century, evolving through multiple stages from insisting on the de facto reciprocity—where the other party must “take the first step”—to more diverse criteria. Today, following the introduction of China’s new reciprocity criteria in 2022, the criteria include three tests: de jure reciprocity, reciprocal understanding or consensus, and reciprocal commitment. The first of these—de jure reciprocity—was applied in the case discussed here.

The de jure reciprocity used in this case examines the laws of the state of origin to assess the feasibility of Chinese court judgments being recognized and enforced there, without requiring prior precedents of that state recognizing Chinese judgments.

Clearly, this represents a more liberal, inclusive, and open stance on judicial assistance, further promoting the circulation of judgments between China and South Korea and enhancing judicial cooperation. One hopes that this upward spiral of positive momentum will one day be replicated between China and Japan.

Photo by Lauren Seo on Unsplash

[i] For the List of China's Bilateral Treaties on Judicial Assistance in Civil and Commercial Matters (Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Included), please click HERE.

[ii] See Spring Comm Corporation v. Piao Zonggen (2011) Shen Zhong Fa Min Yi Chu Zi No. 45 ((2011) 深中法民一初字第45号), Zhang Xiaoxi v. Gui Yunfeng (2015) Shen Zhong Min Si Te Zi No. 2 ((2015) 沈中民四特字第2号).

[iii] Docket No.: 99 Gahap 26253.

[iv] Docket No.: 2015Gahap936.

[v] See Kwang Hyun Suk, Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments between China, Japan and South Korea in the New Era: South Korean Law Perspective, 13 FRONTIERS L. CHINA 171(June 2018).

[vi] See Cui v. Yin (2018) Lu 02 Xie Wai Ren No. 6 ((2018) 鲁02协外认6号).

[vii] See Lee Won June v. Park Kyun Geu, No.: 선 고 2018나23101 집행판결.

[viii] See Pektor Art Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Chuangyi Baby Education Management Consulting Co., Ltd. (2019) Hu 01 Xie Wai Ren No. 17 ((2019) 沪01协外认17号), SD Biotechnologies Co., Ltd v. 99 Trade Co., Ltd (2019) Jing 04 Xie Wai Ren No.3 ((2019) 京04协外认3号).

On 16 June 2025, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) released typical cases of online consumption, aiming to regulate new business formats such as live-stream marketing.

The batch of five cases focuses on issues in online consumption, including false advertising by operators, seven-day no-reason returns, misleading consumers, concert ticket refunds, and the excessive collection of consumer information.

Some businesses engage in false advertising in the field of live-stream shopping,. In the Typical Case No.1, Hou v. Zhang, the operator promised in the live stream that the sold bracelet was made of pterocarpus santalinus and claimed “genuine guarantee” and “tenfold compensation for fakes”, but the delivered product was made of black rosewood, a different wood. The court ordered the operator to compensate the consumer ten times the price as promised, namely CNY 10,000.

The Chinese court held that when the quality of goods does not conform to the promise, compensation should be made. Although the operator’s promise of tenfold compensation is higher than the threefold compensation standard stipulated in the “Law of the People’s Republic of China on Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests”, this promise constitutes the content of the information network sales contract between the consumer and the operator, and the operator should perform as agreed. This case is conducive to sanctioning consumption fraud and fully protecting the rights of individual consumers.

Photo by Jason An on Unsplash

On 12 June 2025, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) released six typical cases involving the use of the internet and information technology to infringe upon personality rights, highlighting the judicial practice of courts in protecting personality rights.

These cases address issues such as facial identity theft, AI voice cloning, and cyberbullying, reflecting courts’ responses to torts related to emerging technologies.

Among them, two cases involve the abuse of AI technology. In one case, a dubbing company used AI to replicate Yin’s voice for profit without permission, and the court found the company liable for infringing upon Yin’s personality rights. In another case, a software company developed a “face-swapping” app using Peng’s portrait, and the court held that this constituted infringement of portrait rights.

Two other cases demonstrate the severe punishment of cyberbullying and data crimes. In Case No.4, Meng and Gao publicly disclosed Chen’s personal information through fan accounts and incited cyberbullying against Chen, damaging his reputation. The court found them guilty of infringing upon reputation rights and ordered them to delete the information, apologize, and compensate for losses. In Case No.5, Xu and Li were convicted of the crime of infringing on citizens’ personal information by illegally buying and selling more than 130 sets of citizen data containing facial information for profit, and were sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment with fines respectively.

Photo by sj on Unsplash

Key takeaways:

• In December 2024, the New Zealand High Court enforced a Chinese judgment ordering repayment of approximately NZD 24 million (Hebei Huaneng Industrial Development Co Ltd v Shi [2024] NZHC 3656).
• The New Zealand court rejected the judgment debtor's natural justice defense after detailed analysis, finding no violation of New Zealand standards despite arguments about the absence of “hearing”.
• The New Zealand Court clarified that the relevant standard is New Zealand’s own conception of natural justice, not strict compliance with Chinese procedural law.
• The ruling suggests that natural justice defenses may be more persuasive in default judgment cases, but less so where the debtor actively participated in the original proceedings.

On 4 Dec. 2024, the High Court of New Zealand (hereinafter the “New Zealand Court”) ruled to enforce a Chinese monetary judgment (Hebei Huaneng Industrial Development Co Ltd v Shi [2024] NZHC 3656). The Chinese judgment was made by the Hebei High People's Court (HHPC), the court of second instance, in 2019 ((2019) Ji Min Zhong No. 817 ((2019)冀民终817号)).

This is the third reported case of a Chinese judgment being recognized in New Zealand, according to the CJO database.

Related Posts:

• Series: New Zealand-China Judgments Recognition and Enforcement
• A Chinese Judgment Denied Enforcement in Australia, As "Public Announcement" against Natural Justice?
• New Zealand Court Recognizes a Chinese Judgment for the First Time
• Again! New Zealand Court Enforces Chinese Judgment
• China Dismisses Application for Enforcing New Zealand Judgment Due to Parallel Proceedings

1. Case Background

The dispute arose from coal supply dealing between the Plaintiff, Hebei Huaneng Industrial Development Co Ltd (“Huaneng”), a Chinese state-owned enterprise, and three Defendants, Qinhuangdao Boen Trading Company Ltd (“Boen”), a Chinese company, together with its actual controller, Mr. Deming Shi, and an allegedly affiliated company, Tangshan Seaport Detai New Material Technic Company Ltd (“Detai”).

In 2012, Huaneng agreed to pay Boen for the supply of coal. The companies entered a series of supplementary agreements. Under them, Huaneng made advance payments to Boen to facilitate the coal supply. The first advance payment totaled RMB 103,426,379.28, or approximately NZD 24,000,000. Boen was obliged to repay Huaneng’s advance payment(s) on termination of its supply agreement(s) with Huaneng.

In March 2015, Mr. Shi guaranteed Boen’s obligation to repay the advance payment(s). The guarantee was expressed as being “joint and several”. Detai provided a security in relation to its guarantee. In 2016, the parties agreed that Boen owed Huaneng RMB 43,210,000 for coal it had failed to supply, and RMB 30,000,000 concerning an additional advance payment. Boen failed to make any payment to Huaneng.

In December 2017, Huaneng filed a lawsuit against Boen, Mr. Shi, and Detai before the

Shijiazhuang Intermediate People’s Court of Hebei Province (“SIPC”), seeking a total of RMB 176,636,379.28 and interest. Both Boen and Mr. Shi defended the claim, and Detai was served but did not participate.

In 2018, the SIPC ruled partly in favor of Huaneng (see (2018) Ji 01 Min Chu No. 39 ((2018) 冀01民初39号)), holding that Boen was required to repay what it described as coal arrears and interest to Huaneng, and Huaneng was entitled to enforce the security provided by Detai. However, the SIPC dismissed Huaneng’s claim against Mr. Shi on the basis that his guarantee was time-barred (or had expired).

Huaneng appealed against the SIPC judgment to the HHPC.

In August 2019, the HHPC rendered the final judgment (the “Chinese Judgment”), upholding Huaneng’s appeal in relation to Mr. Shi, and ruling that Mr. Shi was liable under the guarantee to pay Huaneng RMB 103,426,379.28, the amount of the first advance payment (see (2019) Ji Min Zhong No. 817).

In December 2019, Huaneng made an application for the enforcement of the Chinese Judgment before the SIPC, but no significant assets were found in mainland China.

Huaneng later discovered Mr. Shi has assets in New Zealand. Consequently, in 2020, Huaneng applied to enforce the Chinese Judgment before the New Zealand Court, requiring payment, by Mr. Shi, of approximately NZD 24,000,000.

On 4 Dec. 2024, the New Zealand Court ruled in favor of the judgment creditor, Huaneng.

2. Court Views

The proceedings in New Zealand lasted for over four years, starting from May 2020, when Huaneng sought freezing and ancillary orders in relation to Mr. Shi’s assets in New Zealand, which were granted in June 2020.[i]

Huaneng first applied for summary judgment to enforce the PRC judgment in New Zealand pursuant to the common law. But, at the jurisdiction stage, Mr. Shi raised a jurisdictional challenge, arguing that “China does not have true courts” for the purpose of judgment recognition in New Zealand.[ii] Associate Judge Bella rejected this somewhat unprecedented argument in 2020.[iii] One year later, when faced with the same argument, Associate Judge Sussock examined it in greater detailes, and considered that Mr. Shi had an arguable defence either on the basis that “the foreign judgment is not a judgment of a court as that term is understood for the purposes of recognition” or on that “one of the exceptions to recognition, namely a breach of natural justice, may be available”, dismissing the summary judgment application.[iv] (More analysis can also be found in a post on CoL by Mr. Jack Wass (Stout Street Chambers, New Zealand).)

The case then went to trial, shortly after the New Zealand Court dismissed Huaneng’s application for leave to appeal the judgment dismissing the summary judgment.[v] The criteria for enforcement in New Zealand at common law are clear. Mr. Shi accepted that the Chinese Judgment meets three prerequisites in that (a) the Chinese Court had jurisdiction over the dispute; (b) the Chinese Judgment was for a definite sum; and (c) the Chinese Judgment was final and conclusive.

However, the judgment debtor, Mr. Shi, raised the “natural justice” defense, arguing that the Chinese Judgment was obtained in circumstances constituting a breach of natural justice, based on two sub-arguments: (a) there was no hearing, as such, in the Chinese Court, which was also contrary to Chinese law; and (b) Procedural and other shortcomings exist in relation to Detai, which might have compromised Mr Shi’s rights.

The New Zealand Court rejected Mr. Shi’s sub-arguments in a detailed analysis. For the first sub-argument, by citing Hook and Wass’s The Conflict of Laws in New Zealand, the Court pointed out that “Natural justice requires that the judgment debtor had adequate notice of the proceedings; and a fair opportunity of putting their case before an impartial tribunal”.[vi] Considering that there was a hearing (be it open to the public or not), that the judgment debtor was presented and able to advance a defense in Chinese court proceedings, and that there were no suggestion of bias on the part of the Chinese Court, that Court being subject to an influence, as a matter of result, there was no such violation of New Zealand standards of natural justice absent a hearing, as that term is understood in Chinese law (at [33]). For the second sub-argument, it is “camouflaged attacks” on the merits of the Chinese Judgment, an issue that a New Zealand Court would not address (at [52]).

3. Comments

Once again, the “natural justice” defense came to the spotlight when a Chinese judgment was sought to be enforced in a common law jurisdiction. It’s always interesting to see how the requested courts assess this defense. 

Related Posts:

• A Chinese Judgment Denied Enforcement in Australia, As "Public Announcement" against Natural Justice?
• A Chinese Judgment Denied Enforcement by Court of NSW Australia, Due to Defective Service by Post？

In the view of the New Zealand Court, the key question is whether what occurred violates “New Zealand standards of natural justice”, not whether the court of origin followed its own law.[vii] As discussed in this case, “New Zealand standards of natural justice” require “adequate notice of the proceedings”, and “right of defense and to a fair trial”.

Readers familiar with PRC rules of foreign judgment enforcement will easily spot the similarities in “Chinese standards of natural justice”. Under Art. 300 of the PRC Civil Procedure Law (2023), the Chinese version of natural justice also emphasizes the litigants' procedural rights, encompassing the right to be legally summoned, the right to be heard, and the right to representation.    

Related Posts:

• What’s New for China’s Rules on Foreign Judgments Recognition and Enforcement? - Pocket Guide to 2023 China’s Civil Procedure Law (1)
• Thus Spoke Chinese Judges on Foreign Judgments Recognition and Enforcement: Insights from Chinese Supreme Court Justices on 2023 Civil Procedure Law Amendment (4)

In any case, the “natural justice” defense, or other similar defenses such as “denial of procedural fairness”, may be more persuasive in default judgments, as we have seen in Australian cases such as Yin v Wu [2023] VSCA 130, and Zhou v Jing [2023] NSWSC 214, but less so if the judgment debtors actively participated in the original proceedings.

[i] Hebei Huaneng Industrial Development Co Ltd v Shi [2020] NZHC 2470 [22 September 2020], at [7].

[ii] Hebei Huaneng Industrial Development Co Ltd v Shi [2020] NZHC 2992 [12 November 2020], at [2].

[iii] As Associate Judge R M Bella noted, “as far as I am aware, this is the first case where it has been argued that in contemporary China there are no courts, as we understand them” (Hebei Huaneng Industrial Development Co Ltd v Shi [2020] NZHC 2992 [12 November 2020], at [59]).

[iv] Hebei Huaneng Industrial Development Co Ltd v Shi [2021] NZHC 2687 [8 October 2021], at [91].

[v] See Hebei Huaneng Industrial Development Co Ltd v Shi [2022] NZHC 1484 [23 June 2022], [2022] NZCA 534 [10 November 2022].

[vi] Hebei Huaneng Industrial Development Co Ltd v Shi [2024] NZHC 3656 [4 December 2024], at [15].

[vii] Hebei Huaneng Industrial Development Co Ltd v Shi [2024] NZHC 3656 [4 December 2024], at [23].

Photo by Kerin Gedge on Unsplash