In 2025, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPC) approved two bilateral treaties establishing structured frameworks for judicial assistance in civil and commercial matters with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Republic of Serbia.  Specifically, on April 30, 2025, the 15th Session of the 14th NPC Standing Committee ratified the Agreement Between the People's Republic of China and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on Judicial Assistance and Cooperation in Civil and Commercial Matters, which had been signed in Riyadh on December 7, 2022. Subsequently, on September 12, 2025, the 17th Session of the 14th NPC Standing Committee ratified the Treaty Between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Serbia on Judicial Assistance in Civil and Commercial Matters, signed in Belgrade on May 8, 2024. 

Under the China-Saudi Arabia bilateral treaty, the scope of bilateral judicial cooperation encompasses four areas: the service of judicial documents, the taking of evidence, the mutual recognition and enforcement of court judgments, and the exchange of statutory legal materials concerning civil, commercial, and personal status matters. 

Crucially for cross-border asset recovery and international enforcement litigants, the agreement broadens the definition of enforceable "court decisions". The term formally includes judgments rendered in civil, commercial, and personal status disputes, civil orders within criminal proceedings regarding victim compensation or the restitution of property, as well as court-issued civil settlement statements (also known as mediation judgments).

For information about bilateral judicial assistance treaties that China and 41 States have concluded, please see the List of China's Bilateral Treaties on Judicial Assistance in Civil and Commercial Matters (Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Included). Authoritative texts in Chinese and other languages are now available.

For the List of China’s Cases on Recognition of Foreign Judgments, please click HERE.

Related Posts:

• New Zealand Court Enforces Chinese Mediation Judgment for the First Time
• Canadian Court Enforces Chinese Civil Settlement Statement/Mediation Judgment in 2019
• The First Time Australia Recognizes Chinese Civil Settlement Statements
• Chinese Civil Settlement Statements: Enforceable in Singapore?

Photo by Tom Lau on Unsplash

This article was originally published in Conflict of Laws and is reproduced with the consent of the author, Meng Yu.

[ABSTRACT]

Recent Australian case law clarifies that the “double interest” mechanism in the People’s Republic of China (hereafter ‘PRC’) monetary judgments functions as a compensatory post-judgment interest framework rather than an unenforceable penalty. This consolidates Australia’s position as a highly attractive and creditor-friendly forum for enforcing Chinese judgments. See Zhengzhou Lvdu Real Estate Group Co v Shu [2024] NSWSC 58 (6 February 2024), Fu v Pang [2025] VSC 597 (16 September 2025), and Shanghai Chenggong Industrial Co Ltd v Zhihua Chen [2025] NSWSC 1112 (27 October 2025).

Key takeaways:

• Australian courts have astutely recognized that PRC “double interest” does not actually double the contractual rate, but operates as an additional statutory post-judgment rate (0.0175% per day) to compensate for delayed performance.
• Across three recent decisions, Australian courts in New South Wales and Victoria firmly ruled that Article 264 interest under China’s Civil Procedure Law is not penal, as it aims to compensate rather than punish, and it vindicates a private right and lacks a state-enforced punitive purpose.
• The willingness to enforce this Article 264 interest mechanism was significantly enhanced by its functional equivalence to Australia's own post-judgment interest rules under the UCPR.

In recent decades, Australia has increasingly become a top creditor-friendly jurisdiction for PRC judgment creditors. In just two years (2024-2025), six Chinese judgments have been recognized and enforced by Australian courts,[i] mainly in two states – New South Wales and Victoria.

Like in other common jurisdictions, as previously reported, the grounds that judgment debtors frequently use in challenging such recognition and enforcement in Australia are denial of procedural fairness and natural justice, often arising from the service of process in Chinese court proceedings. See Zhou v Jing [2023] NSWSC 214 (procedural fairness); Yin v Wu [2023] VSCA 130 (natural justice).

Related Posts:

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

More interestingly, Australian courts have been dealing with a newish defense in a series of three recent cases - Zhengzhou Lvdu Real Estate Group Co v Shu [2024] NSWSC 58 (6 February 2024), Fu v Pang [2025] VSC 597 (16 September 2025), and Shanghai Chenggong Industrial Co Ltd v Zhihua Chen [2025] NSWSC 1112 (27 October 2025). The common issue at heart is whether the “double interest”, an element commonly seen in PRC monetary judgments, is penal, and hence renders the judgments wholly or partially unenforceable in Australia.

As misleading as the term “double interest” may appear, the way Australian courts endeavor to understand a term absolutely unique in a foreign country is admirable. The courts not only correctly pointed out that “double interest” is a misnomer, as it has nothing to do with “double”, but also concluded that such “double interest” is not penal in nature.

For the avoidance of doubt, the so-called “double interest” refers to the double part debt interest of the “Article 264 interest” (also known as “double part debt interest of delayed performance interest”, chiyan lvxing lixi de jiabei bufen zhaiwu liyi), the interests payable under Article 264 of China’s 2023 Civil Procedure Law (CPL) (formerly numbered Article 253 of 2017 CPL, Article 260 of 2021 CPL), which applies in in circumstances where a judgment debtor fails to pay the judgment debt within the period as specified in a judgment.

The method to calculate the Article 264 interest is governed by the 2014 Interpretation by China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) on Several Issues concerning the Applicable Law for Calculating the Interest of Debt on Delayed Performance in Enforcement Procedures” (hereinafter the “SPC Interpretation”).[ii] Article 1 of the SPC Interpretation provides that Article 264 interest - delayed performance interest (the debt interest during the period of delayed performance)- is composed of the ‘general debt interest’ and the ‘double part debt interest’, the former (if any) is specified by the judgment, and the latter is calculated via the formula as follows: Double part of debt interest = the outstanding monetary debt of the debtor other than general debt interest specified by effective legal document x 0.00175 per day x delayed performance period.

“Double Interest” Not Double

The term “double interest” is “something of a misnomer”, indicated the Supreme Court of New South Wales (the “NSW Supreme Court”) in Zhengzhou Lvdu Real Estate Group Co v Shu, a case where a judgment of Zhengzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Henan Province (hereinafter the “Zhengzhou Judgment”) for RMB 318,827,295.13 was ruled enforceable.

Like a koala bear is not a bear, the double interest is not double. By nature, it is an “additional” interest, in addition to general debt interest specified by judgment (if any), when the judgment debt was not paid within the period specified in the judgment.

In the Zhengzhou Judgment, the judgment debtors - both the borrower and the guarantor- were found liable for the all the payment obligations, i.e. 1) to repay to the lender (judgment creditor) the principal of the loan in the amount of CNY 170 million and its interest (based on principal of CNY 170 million, calculated on an annual interest rate of 12% for the period between 12 June 2019 and 11 May 2020; and calculated on an annual interest of 18% for the period from 12 May 2020 until the date when the debt is fully repaid) within ten days after this judgment takes effect; and 2) to pay the Article 264 interest, if the payment obligation is not performed within the period specified in this judgment, which is “within ten days after this judgment took effect on 20 September, 2020” (at [42]-[43]).

Clearly, Article 264 (formerly Article 253 of 2017 CPL) does not double the interest rate provided for under the Loan Agreement (which was 12% per annum from the date of the advance until the date of maturity, and then 18% per annum from the date of default until repayment). Instead, there is “double” interest only in the sense that, from the date when the judgment debt was required to be paid until the date of actual payment, there is a second interest rate applicable, in addition to the contractual interest rate of 18% which was found to apply in the Zhengzhou Judgment (at [65]).

Given the calculation method above, Article 264 Interest is calculated based on “the “outstanding monetary debt of the debtor other than general debt interest specified by effective legal document” is, in this case, the amount of the principal (CNY 170 million). The rate of Article 264 interest is a statutory rate, set at 0.0175% per day (around 6.3875% per annum). The “delayed performance period” starts from 29 September 2020 (ten days after this judgment took effect on 9 September) until repayment.

“Double Interest” Not Penal

In Zhengzhou Lvdu Real Estate Group Co v Shu, the NSW Supreme Court considered whether “Double Interest” could be regarded penal in nature, but did not reach any determination, given that “it is the Defendant who bears the burden of showing that any element of the Zhengzhou Judgment is penal in nature and that “no evidence and no submissions have been advanced to this effect” (at [68]).

Similarly, in Fu v Pang, the Victoria Supreme Court reviewed an application to enforce a Chinese judgment of Qingxiu District People's Court of Nanning City, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, and this time, the defendant did seek to persuade the court that the double interest was penal in nature.

With detailed reasoning, however, the Victoria Supreme Court rejected the defendant’s submission and concluded it is not penal, ruling that

“there is no public interest element. The double part interest arises out of the exercise of a private right and it has no connection with the state, nor is the plaintiff here acting as a common informer. There is no basis on which it can be concluded that the payment of the extra interest component is imposed for public purposes to punish the defendant for non-compliance with the judgment, rather than being an additional compensation for the plaintiff for the detriment of being kept out of the judgment sum.” (at [30])

Just one month later, in Shanghai Chenggong Industrial Co Ltd v Zhihua Chen, where two PRC judgments were enforced, the NSW Supreme Court reached the same conclusion. In this case, the double interest is the only issue that the defendant disputed, and the court held firmly that Article 264 interest is not penal.

As the NSW Supreme Court revealed, the question at heart is the purpose and nature of Article 264 interest: “does it punish for non-compliance with Court orders, or is it more appropriately considered a legislated post-judgment interest rate?” (at [18]) The court opined the correct answer is the latter.

To start with, it is not akin to a contractual penalty by any comparison. There are also no authorities decided after Schnable v Lui [2002] NSWSC 15 that punitive damages will always be considered penal in Australian law. In other words, punitive damages are not necessarily penal.

More importantly, Article 264 interest aims “to compensate, and not to punish”, because Article 264 is triggered where there is late or deferred payment, and it is “appropriate to compensate a plaintiff for being held out of money, just the way the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (UCPR) provides for post-judgment interest on judgment debts”. (at [31])

Comments

Not long after, by following the same stance on the “non-penal” nature of Article 264 interest in Shanghai Chenggong Industrial Co Ltd v Zhihua Chen, the same court, the NSW Supreme Court, enforced a PRC judgment of Zhangjiagang People’s Court of Jiangsu Province for RMB 24,256,223.86 and interest in Kai Yuan v Jian Hua Zhou [2025] NSWSC 1469 (5 December 2025).

By clearing the name of “double interest”, the series of recent Australian court decisions has pointed out that the double interest is not double, but additional; and its purpose is to compensate, rather than to punish.

At the end of the day, it is practically difficult to ascertain the purpose behind remedies ordered in foreign judgments. The “compensate or punish” question matters so much that taking on one side over the other can render the part containing such interest either enforceable or unenforceable. There seems to be no room for a mixed purpose, which might as well be a third way of interpretation (if taking into account the views of China’s legislature and judiciary).[iii]

Moreover, behind the “compensate or punish” question lies a further question that has yet to be fully tested: what ‘penal’ actually means in the rule against enforcement of a foreign penal law, when discussing the relevant jurisprudence regarding recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.

One thing is clear though: when evaluating a foreign concept like PRC “double interest”, the existence of a similar domestic mechanism—such as Australia’s statutory post-judgment interest under the UCPR—makes the concept far easier for local courts to understand and accept. Conversely, courts in jurisdictions like Hong Kong, which lack such a domestic equivalent, may find it much more challenging to conceptualize and enforce.[iv]

[i] See Zhengzhou Lvdu Real Estate Group Co v Shu [2024] NSWSC 58, Fujian Rongtaiyuan Industrial Co Ltd v Zhan [2024] NSWSC 1318, Yangpu Huigu Pharmaceutical Corporation Limited v He [2025] NSWSC 28, Fu v Pang [2025] VSC 597, Shanghai Chenggong Industrial Co Ltd v Zhihua Chen [2025] NSWSC 1112, Kai Yuan v Jian Hua Zhou [2025] NSWSC 1469.

[ii] Interpretation by China’s Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues concerning the Applicable Law for Calculating the Interest of Debt on Delayed Performance in Enforcement Procedures, Fa Shi (2014) No. 8, 7 July 2014.

[iii] See Legislative Affairs Commission of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (ed.), Explanation of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (Beijing: Law Press China, 2^nd edition, 2012), p. 590; Civil Law Office of the Legislative Affairs Commission of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (ed.), Explanations of Articles, Legislative Rationale, and Relevant Provisions of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (Beijing: Peking University Press, 2^nd edition, 2012), p. 398; and the Official from the Enforcement Bureau of the Supreme People's Court Answers Reporters' Questions, People’s Court Daily, 31 July 2014, available at https://www.chinacourt.cn/article/detail/2014/07/id/1354917.shtml.

[iv] See Hung Fung Enterprises Holdings Ltd v The Agricultural Bank of China [2012] HKCA 251, Foshan Nanhai Branch of Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Ltd v Foshan Ruifeng Petroleum and Chemical Fuel Co Ltd [2019] 2 HKLRD 478, Tianjin Financial Investment Services Group v Jinan Muhe Enterprise Management Co Ltd & Ors [2025] HKCFI 6182, Industrial Bank Co., Ltd., Ningbo Branch v Ningbo Baifeng Mineral Processing Co., Ltd. & Ors [2026] HKCFI 2455, and Letui (Shanghai) Cultural Communication Co., Ltd. v. Shenzhen Mega Combine Technology Co.,Ltd & Ors [2026] HKCFI 3204.

On May 21, 2026, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) released five typical cases regarding the estate administrator system under the Civil Code, focusing on practical difficulties such as determining estate administrators, false waiver of inheritance, and settlement of estate management expenses.

The Inheritance Book of the Civil Code added the estate administrator system on the basis of the original Inheritance Law, systematically stipulating the generation methods, statutory duties, and civil liabilities of estate administrators, filling the gap in estate management rules.

In Case 2 released this time, after Yang passed away, his parents and daughter waived inheritance in writing, but actually received and disposed of his funeral expenses, pensions, and old-age insurance balance of more than 200,000 yuan, and promised to pay debts and paid 50,000 yuan in another case. The court ruled that the heirs denied their intention to waive inheritance through actual behaviors, and it did not belong to the situation where "all heirs waive inheritance", rejecting the creditor's application to designate the civil affairs department as the estate administrator.

“The appointment of civil affairs departments as default estate administrators is strictly a public policy safety net of last resort, applicable only when no eligible heirs exist or when all heirs legitimately renounce their claims”, stated Judge Chen Yifang, Director of the SPC’s First Civil Division, during a press briefing. “If an heir executes a superficial waiver while maintaining actual possession of the assets to evade creditors, such a waiver is null and void”.

Photo by Sasun Bughdaryan on Unsplash

On May 8, 2026, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) released five typical cases targeting the infringement of citizens’ personal information and associated cybercrimes. The selection highlights a coordinated judicial strategy centered on four strategic pillars: source eradication, data security enforcement, suppressing cyber “doxxing” (locally termed “kaihe” or “box-opening", and dismantling full-chain criminal networks.

The illicit trade and leakage of personal data have escalated significantly in recent years, propelled by increasingly sophisticated, clandestine technologies that fuel an extensive "black-and-gray" cyber industry.

The case of Lin and Wang released this time is very typical. Between 2023 and 2025, the duo illicitly amassed hundreds of millions of data profiles via the internet to construct a commercialized "social engineering database" (shegongku) website, which stockpiled over 170 million verified personal records for profitable exploitation. Furthermore, Lin curated a digital chatroom comprising over 2,000 active participants, utilizing the platform to orchestrate highly targeted doxxing campaigns that exposed victims' private details alongside severe online harassment and defamation.

The court convicted Lin of both infringing upon citizens' personal information and illegally utilizing information networks, sentencing him to seven years in prison coupled with a 70,000 yuan (USD 9,700) fine. Wang was sentenced to five and a half years in imprisonment and fined 50,000 yuan (USD 6,900) for data infringement.

The emphasis on these offenses reflects broader judicial trends outlined in recent official disclosures. According to the SPC’s annual work report published earlier in March, Chinese courts adjudicated over 9,300 cyber-safety criminal cases over a five-year period, representing a sharp 158.5% surge. The explicit inclusion of this severe doxxing precedent in the SPC's 2026 annual report serves as a decisive institutional directive signaling zero tolerance for cyber violence and algorithmic harassment.

Photo by Yuan zhe on Unsplash

In the first enforcement action under its newly enacted anti-extraterritorial overreach statute, China’s Ministry of Justice (MOJ) issued the MOJ Announcement No.5 on May 15, 2026, declaring the European Union's cross-border investigative practices in its foreign subsidies probe into Nuctech to be "improper extraterritorial jurisdiction".

The MOJ, alongside the Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) and other agencies, determined that EU regulators had overreached by compelling Chinese financial institutions to hand over non-essential, internal data stored within China’s borders. Under the directive, no organization or individual in China is permitted to comply with or assist in executing these EU measures.

The MOJ announcement marks the inaugural application of the Regulations on Countering Foreign Improper Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, which took effect in April 2026. MOFCOM had already designated the EU’s Foreign Subsidies Regulation (FSR) practices as trade and investment barriers in January 2025. However, European regulators subsequently escalated their probe, prompting Beijing to deploy its new statutory defense mechanism to protect domestic data sovereignty and corporate interests.

This case quickly follows a separate decision on May 2, 2026, where MOFCOM issued its first-ever blocking order under the Blocking Measures to shield five Chinese firms from secondary U.S. sanctions related to Iranian oil trades. Taken together, these back-to-back enforcement actions signal that China’s multi-layered countermeasure framework—spanning the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law, the State Council's new Regulations, and MOFCOM regulations—has fully transitioned into active operation. Legal experts note that while the Blocking Measures focus primarily on trade-related secondary sanctions, the new Regulations provide higher-level authority to counter all-scenario overreach, particularly cross-border administrative and data coercion. Chinese officials urged Brussels to correct its errors, emphasizing a preference for resolving bilateral friction through mutual dialogue.

Photo by A F on Unsplash

On April 7, 2026, the State Council of the People’s Republic of China promulgated the PRC Regulations on Countering Foreign Improper Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (中华人民共和国反外国不当域外管辖条例), effective immediately. The new administrative regulations introduce several core legal mechanisms—including anti-enforcement injunctions, a "malicious entity list," and statutory civil remedies—marking the evolution of China’s legal countermeasures from isolated blocking orders into an integrated, comprehensive defense network.

The Regulations are explicitly designed to safeguard China's national sovereignty, security, and development interests, while protecting the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese citizens and organizations.

To achieve these objectives, the framework establishes a multi-layered countermeasure system:

• Identification Mechanism: The Ministry of Justice (MOJ), in coordination with relevant government departments, is tasked with assessing and identifying foreign measures that constitute improper extraterritorial jurisdiction. Once an official public announcement is made, no organization or individual within China may comply with, or assist in enforcing, the designated foreign measures.
• Anti-Enforcement Orders (Injunctions): For the first time, a formal “anti-enforcement order” (Jinzhi Ling) system has been codified. This mechanism empowers the MOJ to issue administrative orders directly prohibiting compliance with designated foreign extraterritorial rules.
• Malicious Entity List: A newly established “Malicious Entity List” will target foreign organizations and individuals who actively promote or participate in implementing improper extraterritorial measures. Listed entities and individuals will face severe countermeasures, including asset freezes and comprehensive transaction bans.

Photo by Victor He on Unsplash

The revised Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China officially came into force on March 1, 2026. On the very same day, a foreign-related maritime dispute was adjudicated in Wenchang, capturing international attention as the first ad hoc arbitration conducted under the modernized statutory framework.

Related Post:

• China Overhauls Arbitration Law for Global Alignment

The case arose from a collision liability dispute between a foreign-registered Very Large Crude Carrier and a Chinese-flagged coastal vessel. Following the incident, the Hainan Maritime Safety Administration—acting through its Shipping Dispute Diversified Resolution Center—expeditiously completed the accident investigation, issued the liability determination, and secured critical evidence. The agency then guided both parties toward the newly available ad hoc arbitration mechanism. Concurrently, the Hainan Arbitration Association provided administrative support on the applicable rules and recommended a sole arbitrator with extensive maritime expertise and international arbitration experience.

The proceedings formally commenced on the morning of March 1, and the final arbitral award was rendered that afternoon. The entire process was completed within a single day, significantly minimizing time and litigation costs for both parties.

Unlike institutional arbitration, ad hoc arbitration allows parties to directly select their arbitrators to form a temporary tribunal that dissolves once the final award is issued, offering unparalleled flexibility and autonomy.

In September 2025, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPCSC) adopted the first comprehensive overhaul of the Arbitration Law since 1995. The landmark revision introduced ad hoc arbitration to mainland China, permitting its use for foreign-related commercial disputes involving enterprises registered in Free Trade Zones (FTZs) or Free Trade Ports (FTPs), as well as foreign-related maritime disputes. Legal experts note that the swift and successful resolution of this inaugural case underscores the high efficiency and commercial viability of China's new ad hoc arbitration framework.

Photo by Joseph Costa on Unsplash

The newly established International Organization for Mediation (IOMed) has successfully resolved its inaugural case—a maritime charter dispute between Chinese and Singaporean parties—marking a major milestone for the world’s first government-backed global mediation body.

Headquartered in Hong Kong, the IOMed achieved the successful settlement in early May 2026. IOMed Secretary-General Prof. Teresa CHENG Yeuk-wah SC disclosed the breakthrough on May 8 at the Global Mediation Summit in Hong Kong, hailing it as a testament to the efficacy of mediation in resolving complex international maritime conflicts.

The dispute was handled by Ms. Rosita Lau, a Hong Kong-based international maritime lawyer, who served as the sole mediator. Cheng emphasized that all mediation proceedings remain strictly confidential, and details of this case were disclosed exclusively with the consent of all involved parties.

Significantly, while Singapore is not a signatory to the Convention on the Establishment of the International Organization for Mediation, the IOMed extends its dispute resolution services to parties from non-signatory states on a voluntary basis.

As the first intergovernmental legal organization established by its namesake convention, the IOMed maintains its permanent seat in Hong Kong. To date, 41 countries have signed the convention, with 12 having completed their domestic ratification processes. The IOMed is mandated to facilitate the resolution of three categories of disputes: state-to-state, investor-state, and international commercial disputes. Operating strictly on the principle of party autonomy, the mediation process allows any party to withdraw at any time, ensuring all proceedings are confidential and conducted without prejudice to the parties’ rights in any subsequent legal or arbitral proceedings.

Photo by John Simmons on Unsplash

On April 20, 2026, Hong Kong Secretary for Justice Mr Paul Lam, SC, and Supreme People’s Court Vice-president Justice Mao Zhonghua signed the “Arrangement on Mutual Service of Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Proceedings between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region”. This “New Arrangement” updates a framework that has been in place since 1999, modernizing judicial cooperation to meet the complexities of contemporary cross-boundary legal disputes. The update comes in response to a significant surge in service requests and a traditionally low success rate under the previous system, which relied heavily on time-consuming in-person service via mutual entrustment between courts.

To boost operational flexibility and efficiency, the New Arrangement significantly broadens the available methods for service of process. Courts can now utilize electronic transmission for mutual entrustment—a process intended to be completed within two months—as well as service by post. Notably, the pact introduces electronic service with the recipient’s consent and allows for direct service through lawyers or specialized institutions in both jurisdictions. For cases where parties cannot be reached through standard means, service by public notice is permitted and will be deemed completed after 60 days.

The updated framework also introduces pragmatic procedural rules to ensure litigation proceeds without undue delay. Under Article 3, parties may attempt multiple service methods in parallel, with the first successful attempt taking legal precedence. Furthermore, Article 16 stipulates that service is deemed effective if it can be confirmed that the recipient actually received the documents—for instance, if they reference the contents of the served materials in court—even in the absence of formal documentary proof.

Regarding fees, mutual entrustment service between courts is provided free of charge, while any costs arising from methods specified by the entrusting courts shall be borne by that court. For all other service methods, fees shall be paid by the applying party.

Related Posts:

• Tag - International Service of Process in China
• Judicial Pragmatism in Cross-Border Service: China's Supreme Court Tackles Service Evasion in Patent Dispute Involving Amazon
• Thus Spoke Chinese Judges on Cross-border Service of Process: Insights from Chinese Supreme Court Justices on 2023 Civil Procedure Law Amendment (2)
• Can Foreign Judicial Documents Be Served by E-mail/Fax to Litigants in China?| Service of Process and Foreign Judgment Enforcement Series (1)-CTD 101 Series

Photo by Man Chung on Unsplash

On September 12, 2025, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress adopted a comprehensive revision of China's Arbitration Law. Marking the first major legislative overhaul since the original law took effect in 1995, the updated statute comprises 96 articles across eight chapters and entered into force on March 1, 2026. Key updates align the Chinese legal framework more closely with the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, featuring enhanced rules for foreign-related disputes and strengthened judicial support.

The revised law explicitly reflects a pro-arbitration judicial stance, aiming to uphold the validity of arbitration agreements wherever possible. It officially codifies the doctrine of severability, clarifying that the non-formation of a broader contract does not invalidate the underlying arbitration agreement. Furthermore, if one party asserts the existence of an agreement and the opposing party fails to contest it before the first hearing, the tribunal will deem the agreement valid. This legislative backing mirrors recent judicial practice; as Justice GAO Xiaoli, Vice President of the Supreme People's Court, indicated, out of 5,475 related cases handled by Chinese courts in 2024, only 10.3 percent resulted in agreements being ruled invalid or non-existent.

In a significant procedural shift, the updated law introduces an ad hoc arbitration framework. Parties involved in foreign-related maritime disputes, or commercial disputes involving enterprises in designated free trade zones (FTZs) and free trade ports (FTPs), may now select China as their seat of arbitration for ad hoc tribunals. The revision also strengthens interim measures by formally introducing provisions for behavioral preservation (preservation of conduct), which functions as a form of injunctive relief. Additionally, it explicitly empowers tribunals to request judicial assistance for evidence collection. Highlighting strong court backing, Chinese courts granted 99 percent of arbitration-related preservation requests in 2024.

Related Posts: 

• Arbitration in China
• Chinese Court Upholds Ad Hoc Arbitration in Landmark Ruling
• China’s Shanghai Court Issues First Investigation Order to Support International Arbitration

To further attract international dispute resolution, the law permits overseas arbitration institutions to establish operational offices within FTZs and FTPs. It also officially introduces the concept of the "seat of arbitration" to determine applicable laws for arbitration procedure and competent court jurisdiction.

Finally, the law expands the jurisdictional nexus points required for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Underscoring an arbitration-friendly environment, Chinese courts granted all 42 applications for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in 2024.

Related Posts:

• Arbitration in China
• Can Foreign Arbitration Institutions Conduct Arbitration in Mainland China?

First Foreign Arbitration Institution Starts Business in China - China Legal News

Photo by Man Chung on Unsplash

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