When the debtor's assets are outside the mainland, can an effective Chinese judgment be enforced? This report takes the published judgments of courts in three jurisdictions as its sample, works through the routes, requirements and refusals case by case, and reveals a key split: the same "double-rate interest on a debt" is struck out as a penalty in Hong Kong but enforced as compensation in Australia.
Hong Kong: 10 rulings New Zealand: 14 rulings Australia: 14 rulings Recognised / granted: 20 Refused: 14 Report completed 2026-09-271. Three routes, three levels of difficulty. Hong Kong has a dedicated statutory arrangement (a new regime in force from 29 January 2024 plus the old regime), so a mainland judgment can be registered directly; the hurdles are mainly "is the order suitable?" and "is it the right route?". New Zealand and Australia have no treaty, and the mainland is not on their registration lists, so the creditor must bring fresh proceedings on the judgment at common law ("sue on the judgment"). The hurdles are four requirements — jurisdiction, finality, identity of parties and a definite sum — plus limited defences.
2. Failures cluster in two places. In Hong Kong, failures mostly concern the order and the route (registering a judgment other than the appeal judgment, an uncertain amount for supplementary liability, an enforcement ruling treated as a judgment, double-rate interest struck out, the two-year limit and "excluded judgments"). In New Zealand and Australia, failures are almost all about service and procedural fairness — service by public notice or newspaper in China, or service found ineffective, destroys the basis for recognition.
3. A variable to assess in advance: double-rate interest. Four Australian rulings have held that the double-rate interest on a debt under Article 264 (formerly 253/260) of the PRC Civil Procedure Law is compensatory post-judgment interest and enforceable; Hong Kong courts treat it as "a fine or other penalty", refuse to register it under s 5(2)(e) of the old regime, and refuse to enforce that part on public policy grounds. The same mainland judgment can produce different results depending on where it is enforced.
4. Very different time windows. Hong Kong's registration limit is two years; a common-law action in New Zealand has a six-year limitation period; in Australia (New South Wales) it is twelve years. But a long limit is no reason to wait — the defendant may move assets or go bankrupt in the meantime.
| Item | Hong Kong | New Zealand | Australia |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal basis | Arrangement on Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters between the Mainland and Hong Kong (Fa Shi [2024] No. 2) + Mainland Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap. 645); old regime: Choice of Court Arrangement + Cap. 597; common law as fallback | No treaty, no registration scheme; common law only | The "designated countries" under the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 and Regulations 1992 do not include the mainland; common law only |
| Can a mainland judgment be registered? | Yes (application to the Court of First Instance of the High Court) | No | No |
| Thresholds | An "effective judgment", not an excluded matter under Article 3 / s 5, jurisdiction consistent with Article 11, a suitable order; the respondent may raise defences under Article 12 etc. | Four requirements: jurisdiction, finality, identity of parties, definite sum; defences: fraud, public policy, breach of natural justice | Same four requirements ("fixed sum or debt"); defences also include abuse of process, penal judgments and revenue debts |
| Time limit | Two years (Cap. 597 s 7; Cap. 645 s 10) | Six years (Limitation Act 2010 s 35(1), from when the judgment became enforceable in the country of origin) | Twelve years (Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) s 17) / six years under the registration scheme |
| Double-rate interest on a debt | Struck out as a penalty; that part is not enforced | No specific case yet | Compensatory, enforceable (four rulings) |
| Most common grounds for refusal | Unsuitable order, wrong route, excluded judgment | Service / jurisdiction, finality, fraud | Service and procedural fairness |
Hong Kong is the only one of the three where a mainland judgment is "enforced once registered". The new regime in force from 29 January 2024 dropped the "exclusive jurisdiction agreement" requirement and greatly widened coverage — even the civil "order to make restitution" in a mainland criminal judgment can be registered.
| Citation (click for case page) | Case | Mainland court | Result | Key points |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [2025] HKCFI 5714 | HD Hyundai Infracore China Co Ltd (formerly Doosan Infracore (China)) v Li Zhiwei | Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region High People's Court (final criminal ruling) | Recognised / granted | The order in an effective mainland criminal judgment "to make restitution to the victim company" is "an order for payment, made in criminal proceedings, of compensation or damages" under s 3(1)(a)(ii) of Cap. 645 and can be registered under s 14; the judgment was given on 23 October 2024 (after the new regime took effect)… |
| [2026] HKCFI 197 | Beijing Renji Real Estate Development Group Co., Ltd v Zhu Min (common-law route) | Beijing High People's Court | Recognised / granted | After registration failed, the creditor sued at common law. The court held that the mainland trial-supervision / retrial procedure does not by itself deprive a judgment of being "final and conclusive"; the key is the likelihood of retrial being granted, a question of fact needing evidence. Summary judgment was given, but because the mainland judgment already capped interest, the court exercised its discretion not to award post-judgment interest… |
| [2025] HKCFI 5238 | Sunsco International Holdings Ltd v Lin Chunrong and others (including Lin Dairui v Li Kangxin) | A Guangdong people's court (two mainland judgments on three loans totalling RMB 32 million) | Recognised / granted | For common-law enforcement, the mainland trial-supervision / retrial procedure (and procuratorate supervision) does not by itself deprive a judgment of finality: it is in substance similar to an appeal, the judgment remains enforceable on the mainland until a retrial is actually ordered, and the most important consideration is the likelihood of retrial. (The plaintiff ultimately lost on the merits, not for procedural reasons.)… |
| Citation (click for case page) | Case | Mainland court | Result | Key points |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [2025] HKCA 462 | China Minsheng Trust Co Ltd v Fu Kwan | Beijing No. 3 Intermediate People's Court | Refused | A mainland "ruling terminating enforcement" is not a "judgment ordering the payment of a sum of money" under s 5(2)(e) of Cap. 597: the sum payable was fixed by a notary office, not by the court, and the ruling merely ended a round of enforcement while recording that the debtor remained liable; it did not itself make the sum payable. Appeal dismissed, setting aside of registration upheld; the two-year… |
| [2025] HKCA 434 | Huzhou Shenghua Financial Services Co Ltd v Hang Pin Living Technology Co Ltd | Huzhou Intermediate People's Court, Zhejiang (first instance) / Zhejiang High People's Court (appeal) | Refused | (1) Where the defendant appealed the first-instance judgment, the registrable "final and conclusive" judgment is the appeal judgment; the first-instance judgment does not satisfy s 5(2)(c); (2) s 5(2)(e) requires "a definite, calculable sum", and supplementary liability is uncertain until enforcement against the principal debtor's assets is exhausted; (3) s 6(1)… |
| [2025] HKCFI 6182 | Tianjin Jinrong Investment Service Group Co Ltd v Jinan Muhe Enterprise Management Co Ltd and others | Tianjin No. 2 Intermediate People's Court and others (two judgments) | Partly struck out | The double-rate interest on a debt under Article 260 (now 264) of the PRC Civil Procedure Law is, under Hong Kong law, "a fine or other penalty" and does not satisfy s 5(2)(e) of Cap. 597; enforcing it would also be contrary to public policy (s 18(1)(j)). The court set aside registration only as to the double-rate interest; costs and… |
| [2024] HKCA 878 | Beijing Renji Real Estate Development Group Co., Ltd v Zhu Min | Beijing High People's Court | Refused | s 3(2) of Cap. 597 requires the parties to "specify" a mainland court in writing or electronically and exclude other jurisdictions; the guarantee had no jurisdiction clause of its own, and even though mainland law extended the main contract's clause to the guarantee, that was not a qualifying "choice of Mainland court agreement". Registration set aside at first instance; upheld on appeal… |
| [2022] HKCFI 1027 | Beijing Renji Real Estate Development Group Co., Ltd v Zhu Min (first instance) | Beijing High People's Court | Refused | Registration of the mainland judgment set aside because there was no "relevant choice of Mainland court agreement"; the same proceedings also dealt with the defendant's application to discharge a Mareva injunction and the plaintiff's application to continue it (the injunction and registration were decided separately)… |
| [2025] HKCFI 3905 | Deng Mian v Pan Rong | A Shanghai people's court (appeal) | Refused | The choice-of-mainland-court agreement was made on 4 July 2017, before Cap. 645 took effect on 29 January 2024, so the judgment is an "excluded judgment" under s 5(1)(j)(i) and cannot be registered under Cap. 645… |
| [2025] HKCFI 6402 | China Huarong Asset Management Co Ltd v Li Xiao Peng | Xining Intermediate People's Court, Qinghai (civil mediation statement) | Refused | The civil mediation statement met the registration conditions in s 5(2)(a)–(e) of Cap. 597, and s 22(2) uses clear, mandatory language to exclude common-law enforcement of a "registrable mainland judgment"; that defence was at least arguable and needed trial. The summary judgment application (Order 14) was dismissed; the ex parte Mareva injunction, because of… |
China and New Zealand have no treaty on mutual recognition of judgments, and the mainland is not on the schedule to New Zealand's Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1934 (which includes Hong Kong), so the creditor must sue on the judgment as a debt in the High Court and may apply for summary judgment.
| Citation (click for case page) | Case | Mainland court | Result | Key points |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [2014] NZHC 1727 (first instance) / [2016] NZCA 113 (appeal) | Yang Chen v Jinzhu Lin | Fuzhou Intermediate People's Court, Fujian (upheld on appeal by the Fujian High People's Court and in trial supervision by the Supreme People's Court) | Recognised / granted | New Zealand's first recognition of a mainland money judgment. The High Court recognised it but omitted interest; the Court of Appeal ordered enforcement of the full sum plus interest. Although there was neither a treaty nor a reciprocity precedent, the court took an open approach; the defendant's argument (as a New Zealand citizen) that the Fuzhou court lacked jurisdiction failed… |
| [2020] NZHC 3068 (first instance) / [2022] NZCA 281 (appeal) | Guangzhou Dongjiang Petroleum Science & Technology Development Co Ltd v Kang | Tianhe District People's Court, Guangzhou, Guangdong | Recognised / granted | All three defences failed: the defendant's voluntary appearance (through lawyers) founded jurisdiction; the judgment was final; the public policy defence was narrowed — it succeeds only if enforcement would "shock the conscience of a reasonable New Zealander", and only New Zealand public policy is examined, not legality under Chinese law. Summary judgment granted; appeal dismissed… |
| [2023] NZHC 436 | BIN v SUN (parties anonymised) | Haidian District People's Court, Beijing | Recognised / granted | A Haidian court money judgment was recognised and enforced in New Zealand — according to public case collections, the second recognition of a mainland money judgment there. The defendant had been only partly enforced against in China, so the creditor turned to New Zealand… |
| [2023] NZHC 3259 | Tian v Xu | Lubei District People's Court, Tangshan, Hebei | Recognised / granted | New Zealand's first recognition of a mainland "civil mediation statement". The court found it records a settlement voluntarily reached by the parties, is issued and served by the court and once served has the same enforceability as a judgment, so it has the features of a consent judgment. The defendant's arguments that "Chinese courts are not courts", that the judgment was not final and that natural justice was breached all failed for lack of specific evidence; summary judgment granted… |
| [2020] NZHC 2992 | Hebei Huaneng Industrial Development Co Ltd v Shi (stage 1: jurisdiction challenge) | Hebei High People's Court (appeal) | Interlocutory / preservation | The defendant argued that "China has no real courts" because Chinese courts are not independent of the political branches. The court refused to reject a country's entire judicial system: the possibility of political interference can be examined case by case through defences such as natural justice, but cannot be used to deny the whole court system; where the case was heard through a recognisable judicial process and there is no sign of actual political interference… |
| [2023] NZHC 2501 | Hebei Huaneng Industrial Development Co Ltd v Shi (stage 4: security for costs and deposit) | Hebei High People's Court (appeal) | Interlocutory / preservation | The defendant sought security for costs because the plaintiff is a foreign company. The court declined, but required the NZ$200,000 already paid in (originally as the undertaking in damages for a freezing order) to be kept for any future costs award. It also discussed how Chinese courts assess reciprocity, finding that under the "legal reciprocity" principle a New Zealand costs award… |
| [2024] NZHC 3656 | Hebei Huaneng Industrial Development Co Ltd v Shi (stage 5: recognised after full trial) | Hebei High People's Court (appeal) | Recognised / granted | After a full trial the court recognised the mainland judgment. The natural justice defence failed: the standard is New Zealand's own concept of natural justice (adequate notice plus a reasonable opportunity to be heard before an impartial tribunal), not whether the court of origin strictly followed its own procedure; here the defendant appeared and defended, and the court found no bias. As to the alleged procedural defects concerning a third party (Detai)… |
| [2025] NZHC 736 | Eight Mile Investments Limited and others v Liu | Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court, Guangdong | Recognised / granted | According to the judgment, Associate Judge Brittain ruled on the summary judgment application on 14 March 2025, finding the creditors had proved their claim and the defendant had not discharged the burden of proving a defence to recognition; judgment for the creditors. The court also upheld (with some adjustment) freezing orders over property held by the defendant's former wife (including tenancy-in-common shares)… |
| [2025] NZHC 370 | Jimmy Royal v Qi Zheng | Xinxiang Intermediate People's Court, Henan (judgment of 2023-05-31) | Interlocutory / preservation | Relying on facts found in the Chinese judgment (money quickly moved into personal accounts without explanation), the court found a risk of dissipation, granted a freezing order prohibiting disposal of New Zealand assets (specifically a Christchurch property) and allowed substituted service; the summary judgment application continues… |
| Citation (click for case page) | Case | Mainland court | Result | Key points |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [2021] NZHC 2687 | Hebei Huaneng Industrial Development Co Ltd v Shi (stage 2: summary judgment refused) | Hebei High People's Court (appeal) | Refused | Summary judgment refused because the defendant had "arguable defences" on three points: (1) whether the Hebei High Court is a "court" for recognition purposes; (2) whether the original proceedings breached natural justice; (3) whether the judgment was final (under the Chinese Guarantee Law the creditor should first be paid from collateral provided by a third party, so whether his liability was finally fixed was doubtful). Because of the evidential disputes… |
| [2022] NZHC 1484 (also [2022] NZCA 534) | Hebei Huaneng Industrial Development Co Ltd v Shi (stage 3: earlier decision upheld with further reasons) | Hebei High People's Court (appeal) | Refused | The plaintiff argued the earlier decision contained three errors and sought review; the court addressed each and upheld its 2021 conclusion, reiterating that finality must be assessed in light of the order of security and enforcement under Chinese law and with full evidence; the Court of Appeal then refused leave to appeal. The case proceeded to full trial… |
| [2025] NZCA 672 | Shi v Hebei Huaneng Industrial Development Company Ltd (appeal: fraud defence, enforcement stayed) | Hebei High People's Court (appeal) | Refused | The Court of Appeal quickly rejected the natural justice defence but admitted new evidence on the fraud defence and allowed the appeal: the defendant argued that the plaintiff failed to disclose key documents in the original proceedings (allegedly an "extension" of the main contract without a matching extension of his personal guarantee), which if proved could release him entirely. Enforcement was stayed and the fraud allegation sent back to the High Court. New Zealand follows Abouloff… |
| [2024] NZHC 3370 | Tan (Baoshan) v Tan (William) | Haikou Intermediate People's Court, Hainan (judgment of 2020-06-03) | Refused | Summary judgment refused: (1) the fraud defence was arguable; (2) the defendant could not attend the appeal hearing because of the pandemic, and "given the scope of cross-examination apparently allowed on appeal", whether he had a fair opportunity to present his defence was also arguable. The case requires a full trial… |
| [2025] NZHC 2472 | Liu v Li | Jinming District People's Court, Kaifeng, Henan (judgment of 2021-05-06) | Refused | Claim struck out (a permanent refusal): the creditor admitted the Chinese proceedings were served by newspaper notice as substituted service. Whether that complied with Chinese law is irrelevant in New Zealand; what matters is that it is not a basis of jurisdiction under New Zealand conflict-of-laws rules. The creditor argued that an address-for-service confirmation signed by the defendant in another case (in the Longting court) amounted to submission, but the court found the two documents differed in subject matter and time… |
The mainland is not a designated country under the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Hong Kong is), so the creditor must sue at common law in a state Supreme Court. Since 2017 more than ten mainland judgments have been recognised, six of them in 2024–2025 alone, making Australia one of the most receptive common-law jurisdictions for mainland judgments in recent years.
| Citation (click for case page) | Case | Mainland court | Result | Key points |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [2017] VSC 810; (2017) 55 VR 104 | Liu v Ma & Anor | A mainland people's court | Recognised / granted | According to public case collections, Australia's first recognition of a mainland money judgment (the defendant did not oppose and the facts were undisputed)… |
| [2019] VSC 110 | Suzhou Haishun Investment Management Co Ltd v Zhao & Ors | Huqiu District People's Court, Suzhou, Jiangsu | Recognised / granted | The defendants' defences — duress, breach of due process, even that "Chinese courts are inherently corrupt and the rule of law does not apply" — all failed for lack of evidence, and the judgment was recognised; the creditor also undertook not to claim "interest on interest"… |
| [2020] NSWSC 588; (2020) 102 NSWLR 435 | Bao v Qu; Tian (No 2) | Qingdao Intermediate People's Court, Shandong (first instance in the Laoshan District court) | Recognised / granted | New South Wales' first recognition of a mainland money judgment. The court confirmed that a Chinese court's "penalty (double-rate) interest" is not a criminal fine or punitive damages but compensatory and enforceable in Australia; it refused to reopen the merits on the defendant's claim of partial payment… |
| [2022] NSWSC 749 | Bank of China Limited v Chen | A mainland people's court (civil mediation statement) | Recognised / granted | A mainland "civil mediation statement" was recognised in Australia and treated as a judgment, consistent with other common-law jurisdictions (Canada, New Zealand)… |
| [2022] NSWSC 943 | Tianjin Yingtong Materials Co Ltd v Young | Pudong New Area People's Court, Shanghai (judgment of 2010-03-29, effective after the appeal was dismissed on 2010-06-01) | Recognised / granted | (1) Limitation: under s 17 of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), an action on a judgment has a 12-year limit; the judgment was from 2010 and the application from 2021, still in time (China's two-year domestic enforcement limit does not matter); (2) the fraud defence failed: the matters relied on all existed at the original trial and had been… |
| [2024] NSWSC 58 | Zhengzhou Lvdu Real Estate Group Co v Shu | Zhengzhou Intermediate People's Court, Henan | Recognised / granted | Judgment recognised. The court noted that "double interest" is a misnomer: Article 264 interest does not double the contract rate but is post-judgment interest calculated in addition to ordinary debt interest, on the unpaid principal at the statutory daily rate of 0.0175% (about 6.3875% a year). The defendant did not prove it was "penal", and the court made no finding on that… |
| [2024] NSWSC 1318 | Fujian Rongtaiyuan Industrial Co Ltd v Zhan | Fujian High People's Court ((2017) 闽民初118号), upheld by the Supreme People's Court on appeal ((2020) 最高法民终29号) | Recognised / granted | The first recognition of a Supreme People's Court judgment in Australia. The issue was the meaning of "joint return (gongtong fanhuan)", on which the experts differed; the court held that properly understanding the effect of a foreign judgment sometimes requires looking at the substance behind it… |
| [2025] NSWSC 28 | Yangpu Huigu Pharmaceutical Corporation Limited v He | Hainan No. 1 Intermediate People's Court | Recognised / granted | Judgment recognised. The court took a practical, generous view of "identity of parties": where the guarantor is itself a debtor under the mainland judgment, it can be enforced against directly in Australia without first pursuing the principal debtor… |
| [2025] VSC 597 | Fu v Pang | Qingxiu District People's Court, Nanning, Guangxi | Recognised / granted | Judgment recognised. The defendant argued the double-rate interest was penal; after detailed reasoning the court rejected this: the sum arises from the exercise of a private right with no connection to the state, the creditor is not acting as a public informer, and its purpose is to compensate the creditor for being "kept out of" the money during the delay, not to punish the defendant for public purposes for not complying with the judgment… |
| [2025] NSWSC 1112 | Shanghai Chenggong Industrial Co Ltd v Zhihua Chen | A Shanghai people's court | Recognised / granted | The first judgment to address directly whether Article 264 interest under the PRC Civil Procedure Law is penal. The court found its purpose is "compensatory, not punitive": Article 264 interest is triggered by late payment, is a legislated post-judgment interest rate and is functionally equivalent to the judgment-debt interest provisions of the local Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (UCPR); punishment… |
| [2025] NSWSC 1469 | Kai Yuan v Jian Hua Zhou | Zhangjiagang People's Court, Jiangsu | Recognised / granted | Following Shanghai Chenggong that Article 264 interest is not penal, the full mainland judgment (including that interest) was recognised and enforced… |
| Citation (click for case page) | Case | Mainland court | Result | Key points |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [2019] VSC 269 | Xu v Wang | Ningbo Intermediate People's Court, Zhejiang (judgment of 2015-07-09) | Refused | Recognition and enforcement refused: the creditor had already sued the defendant in Victoria, then sued on the same debt in Ningbo without telling the defendant or giving the Chinese court his contact details, so the Chinese court served by public notice and gave default judgment. The court found this breached the service rules of Chinese civil procedure and amounted to a denial of natural justice and an abuse of process… |
| [2023] NSWSC 214 | Zhou v Jing | Jinshui District People's Court, Zhengzhou, Henan (2018 judgment) | Refused | Recognition and enforcement refused: the focus is not whether the Chinese court followed Chinese service rules but whether the defendant received procedural fairness. Two factors led to a finding that postal service was ineffective: (1) the defendant only learned of the proceedings in August 2019 (months after judgment, and after his Chinese bank accounts were subject to enforcement); (2) the Chinese trial record showed the court… |
| [2023] VSCA 130 (first instance [2022] VSC 729) | Yin v Wu | Yinzhou District People's Court, Ningbo, Zhejiang (default judgment of 2018-11-01) | Refused | The Court of Appeal set aside the summary judgment granting enforcement: the defendant's unrebutted statement that he was not served was prima facie evidence, and the judge wrongly put the burden of proving that service by public notice was unlawful on the defendant. More importantly, when the creditor started the Chinese proceedings it knew of several ways to notify the defendant (Twitter, WhatsApp, Tele… |
Mainland judgments often order the debtor to "pay double the interest on the debt for the period of delayed performance" (Article 264, formerly 253/260, of the Civil Procedure Law). The doubled part is calculated on the unpaid money debt at 0.0175% a day (about 6.3875% a year). The two jurisdictions reach opposite conclusions on its nature:
| Jurisdiction | Conclusion | Main reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Hong Kong | "A fine or other penalty"; that part is not registered, and enforcement is refused on public policy grounds | Under Hong Kong law the sum bears no relation to loss suffered, so it falls within the exclusion in s 5(2)(e) of the old regime ([2025] HKCFI 6182 and others) |
| Australia | Compensatory post-judgment interest, enforceable | It does not double the contract rate but is a statutory post-judgment rate added to ordinary debt interest; its purpose is to compensate the creditor for being "kept out of" the money during the delay, it is functionally equivalent to post-judgment interest under the local Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, and it has no element of state punishment |
More: Case Research · Legal Insights · Practice Areas
Wang Xin works in English and Mandarin. Phone +86-18601139509 · WeChat wang223040 · weekdays 9:00–18:00 China time (UTC+8).
Contact Wang Xin