Judgments of Chinese courts are enforceable in Australia via the common law procedure for enforcement of foreign judgments. Two such judgments have been enforced by Australian courts in recent years, most recently in February 2019.

在澳大利亚，中国法院的判决可以通过执行外国判决的普通法程序得到执行。 近年来，澳大利亚法院已经执行了两项此类判决，最近一次是在2019年2月。

This article looks at the conditions that must be satisfied to enforce a Chinese judgment in Australia and the defences that are available to enforcement. This article will also summarise the two judgments that have been enforced and discuss the key takeaways from those judgments.

本文着眼于在澳大利亚执行中国判决必须满足的条件以及适用于执行的抗辩。本文还将总结已经执行的两项判决，并讨论该两项判决的关键要点。

This article does not apply to judgments issued by the Court of Final Appeal or the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. A separate procedure mandated by statute applies to judgments issued by these Courts.

本文不适用于香港特别行政区终审法院或高等法院作出的判决。单独的法定程序适用于这些法院作出的判决。

Enforcing a judgment of a Chinese court in Australia

在澳大利亚执行中国法院的判决

A judgment of a Chinese court may be recognised and enforced in Australia via the common law procedure for enforcement of foreign judgments.

在澳大利亚，中国法院的判决可以通过执行外国判决的普通法程序得到承认和执行。

The plaintiff is required to commence a fresh court proceeding in Australia in order to enforce the judgment. The plaintiff may either rely on the judgment as imposing an obligation on the defendant to pay the sum, and/or base the fresh proceeding on the original cause of action and rely on the judgment of the Chinese court to estop the defendant from raising any defence which was, or could have been, raised in the Chinese proceeding.

原告为执行判决必须在澳大利亚启动新的诉讼程序。原告可以依据对被告施加付款义务的判决，和/或将新的诉讼程序建立在原诉因之上并依据中国法院的判决，来阻止被告提出在中国的诉讼程序中已提出的或本可提出的任何抗辩。

The Australian court will generally recognise and enforce the judgment if the following four conditions are satisfied:

如果一项判决满足以下四项条件，澳大利亚法院通常会承认并执行该判决：

1、The foreign court must have exercised jurisdiction over the defendant which Australian courts will recognise. This is normally established by proving that the defendant was either a resident of the foreign jurisdiction or had a presence in the foreign jurisdiction, or voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction;

1、外国法院必须已经对澳大利亚法院承认的被告行使了管辖权。这通常是通过证明被告是该外国司法管辖区的居民，或曾出现在该外国司法管辖区内，或自愿接受该司法管辖区管辖来确定的；

2、The foreign judgment must be final and conclusive;

2、外国判决必须是终局的和确定的；

3、The parties to the foreign judgment and the Australian proceeding must be identical; and

3、外国判决的当事人和澳大利亚诉讼程序的当事人必须相同；

4、If based on a judgment in persona (that is, a judgment imposing a personal obligation on the defendant), the judgment must be for a fixed debt.

4、如果基于对人诉讼（即，判决对被告施加了个人义务），判决必须基于某确定的债务。

The onus rests on the party seeking to enforce the foreign judgment to establish these grounds. Once they are established, the judgment is prima facie enforceable in Australia unless the defendant can establish one or more of the recognised defences. The defences are:

证明这些理由的责任由寻求执行外国判决的当事人承担。这些理由一旦得以确立，该判决在澳大利亚是初步可执行的，除非被告能够确立一项或多项被认可的抗辩。这些抗辩是：

1、Where granting enforcement of the foreign judgment would be contrary to Australian public policy. This includes judgments obtained by improper means, such as duress or undue influence;

1、准予执行该外国判决将违反澳大利亚的公共政策。包括通过不正当手段获得的判决，例如胁迫或不当影响；

2、Where the foreign judgment was obtained by fraud (including equitable fraud) by the parties or by the foreign court; 

2、该外国判决是由当事人或外国法院通过欺诈（包括平衡法下的欺诈）获得的；

3、Where the foreign judgment is penal or a judgment for a revenue debt; and

3、该外国判决涉及刑罚或是针对财政收入债务的判决；

4、Where enforcement of the decision would amount to a denial of natural justice.

4、执行该判决将构成对自然公正的否认。

It falls to the defendant to establish any of the above defences to enforcement.

上述针对执行的任何抗辩均应由被告来证明。

A defendant cannot challenge the inherent merits of the foreign decision by alleging that the foreign court made a mistake of fact or law. Moreover, a defendant cannot raise any defence in an enforcement proceeding that was, or could have been, raised in the foreign proceeding.

被告不能通过主张外国法院事实认定错误或法律适用错误来质疑外国判决的内在实质。此外，被告不能在执行程序中提出在外国诉讼程序中已提出的或本可提出的任何抗辩。

Recent Australian cases

近期的澳大利亚案例

Two judgments of Chinese courts have been recognised and enforced in Australia in recent years.

近年来，澳大利亚已经承认并执行了两项中国法院的判决。

The first judgment was made by the People’s Court of Jiangsu Nantong Chongchuan District in April 2017. The judgment sum was RMB 3,900,000. The plaintiff applied to the Supreme Court of Victoria to recognise and enforce the judgment in Australia. The defendants did not appear before the Supreme Court, and the plaintiffs' application was therefore unopposed.

第一项判决由江苏省南通市崇川区人民法院于2017年4月作出。判决金额为人民币3,900,000元。原告向维多利亚州州最高法院申请在澳大利亚承认并执行该判决。被告没有出席州最高法院的审判，因而原告的申请没有遭到反对。

The Supreme Court was satisfied that each of the four conditions as set out above had been made out, and accordingly granted the plaintiffs' application: Liu v Ma (2017) 55 VR 104.

州最高法院认为上述四项条件中的每一个都已经满足，并据此支持了原告的申请：Liu诉 Ma案，载于维多利亚州案例汇编2017年第55卷第104页。

The second judgment was made by the People’s Court of Huqiu District, Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province in October 2014. The judgment sum was RMB 20,000,000. The defendants moved to Australia shortly before the judgment was delivered. The plaintiff subsequently commenced a proceeding against the defendants in the Supreme Court of Victoria, and applied for summary judgment in the proceeding based on the back of the Chinese judgment.

第二项判决由江苏省苏州市虎丘区人民法院于2014年10月作出。判决金额为人民币20,000,000元。被告在判决作出前不久移居澳大利亚。随后，原告在维多利亚州州最高法院针对被告提起了诉讼，并根据中国的判决在诉讼程序中申请简易判决。

As in Liu v Ma, the Supreme Court was satisfied that each of the four conditions for the recognition and enforcement of the judgment had been made out, and decided to grant an order for summary judgment: Suzhou Haishun Investment Management Co Ltd v Zhao & Ors [2019] VSC 110 (Suzhou v Zhao). Notably, the Court said at [112]:

与“Liu诉Ma”案一样，州最高法院认为承认与执行判决的四项条件中的每一项都已经满足，并决定下令作出简易判决：Suzhou Haishun Investment Management Co Ltd 诉Zhao及Ors案，载于维多利亚州州最高法院案例汇编2019年第110页（以下简称“Suzhou诉Zhao案”）。值得注意的是，法院在第[112]页明确：

It is inevitable that if an individual is subject to and submits to the laws and procedures of a foreign jurisdiction then, unless it offends this Court’s principles of justice or fairness encapsulated in the rule of law, it is appropriate for this Court to have regard to the decisions of that foreign jurisdiction as the basis to make an order for summary judgment.

如果某个人受外国司法管辖区的法律和程序的约束并服从该外国司法管辖区的法律和程序，除非违反了本院的正义或公平之法治原则，否则本院将该外国司法管辖区的判决视为作出简易判决命令的依据，是适当且不可避免的。

These decisions indicate that in the right circumstances, Australian courts will recognise and enforce judgments of Chinese courts. They also provide some guidance as to the facts that an Australian court may take into account in determining whether a Chinese court exercised a recognisable jurisdiction over a defendant.  In both cases, the fact that the defendants were natural citizens of China and each held a Chinese passport and identity card weighed in favour of a finding that the relevant Chinese court exercised a recognisable jurisdiction over the defendants. Other relevant factors included that the defendants had substantial activities and financial affairs in China (in the case of Liu v Ma), and that the defendants had contractually submitted to the jurisdiction of the relevant Chinese Court (in the case of Suzhou v Zhao).

这两项判决表明，在适当的情况下，澳大利亚法院将承认并执行中国法院的判决。 这两项判决还就澳大利亚法院在认定中国法院是否对被告行使了可承认的管辖权时可能考虑的事实提供了一些指引。在这两起案件中，被告都是中国自然公民并持有中国护照和身份证的事实有利于判定相关中国法院对被告行使了可承认的管辖权。其他相关因素包括被告在中国有大量活动和经济事务（在“Liu 诉 Ma案”中），并且被告已经按照合同接受相关中国法院管辖（在“Suzhou诉Zhao案”中）。

作者（Author)：

Sophie Dawson

鸿鹄律师事务所澳大利亚办公室

Bird & Bird LLP Australia Offices

合伙人

Partner

Matthew Mulcahy

鸿鹄律师事务所澳大利亚办公室

Bird & Bird LLP Australia Offices

律师

Associate

译者：

刘炯 John Liu

锦天城律师事务所

AllBright Law Offices

高级合伙人

Senior Partner

汤旻利 Minli Tang

锦天城律师事务所

AllBright Law Offices

律师

Associate

胡晨奕 Chenyi Hu

锦天城律师事务所

AllBright Law Offices

实习助理

Intern