Fu v Pang - [2025] VSC 597

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

COMMON LAW DIVISION

S ECI 2024 05946

BETWEEN:

GONGWEI FU	Plaintiff
v
KAIYONG PANG	First Defendant
- and -
LU LI	Second Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Watson J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	16 September 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	16 September 2025 (Ex tempore) and 19 September 2025 (Revised)
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Fu v Pang & Anor
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 597

---

CIVIL PROCEDURE - Foreign Judgments - Application for recognition and enforcement of monetary judgment of the People’s Republic of China - Interest payable on judgment sum - Whether ‘double part interest’ portion of interest payment penal in nature - Double interest not penal in nature - Application for confirmation of informal service and judgment in default against first defendant - Likely first defendant is aware of proceedings - Order confirming informal service - Appropriate to proceed to judgment in default of appearance against first defendant - Foreign judgment enforceable against first and second defendants - Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules2025 (Vic) rr 45.03(1) and 80.11(2) - Doe v Howard [2015] VSC 75; Suzhou Haishun Investment Management Co Ltd v Zhao [2019] VSC 110, applied - Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (2012) 247 CLR 205; Benefits Strategies Group Inc v Prider (2005) 91 SASR 554; Bao v Qu; Tian (No 2) (2020) 102 NSWLR 435; Zhengzhou Lvdu Real Estate Group Co Ltd v Shu [2024] NSWSC 58; INGENU CRO Pty Ltd v Psycheceutical AU Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2025] VSC 581, considered - Schnabel v Lui [2002] NSWSC 15, distinguished.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr C G Juebner KC with Dr D Stamboulakis	Oakley Thompson & Co
For the First Defendant	No appearance
For the Second Defendant	Mr T P Mitchell KC with Mr D J Briggs	Ascot Solicitors

HIS HONOUR:

By originating motion dated 6 November 2024, the plaintiff, Mr Gongwei Fu, seeks an order recognising a civil judgment of the Qingxiu District People's Court of Nanning City, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, China, dated 30 June 2023, in the sum of RMB17,597,932.66 together with interest.
That judgment was the subject of a second instance proceeding in the Nanning Intermediate People's Court, where it was sought to be overturned by the defendants in this proceeding. The application for overturning was rejected and the judgment upheld.
There was a further application for a retrial made on 8 November 2024. On 21 July 2025 that retrial application was rejected by the Guangxi High People's Court.
Ms Li, who is the second defendant in this proceeding, has taken an active role in these proceedings.
In her outline of submissions, Ms Li says that for a foreign judgment to be recognised at common law, four conditions must be satisfied:
(a)the foreign court must have exercised jurisdiction that Australian courts will recognise;
(b)the foreign judgment must be final and conclusive;
(c)there…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Fu v Pang

Details

AGLC: Fu v Pang [2025] VSC 597
Case: [2025] VSC 597
Decision Date: 16 September 2025 (Ex tempore) and 19 September 2025 (Revised)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Fu v Pang, the plaintiff sought the recognition and enforcement of a monetary judgment rendered by a court in the People’s Republic of China. The defendants, including the first and second defendants, contested the application on various grounds. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether the 'double part interest' element of the interest payable on the judgment sum was penal in nature, and whether the court could confirm the informal service of proceedings and the subsequent judgment in default against the first defendant. The court also had to determine the enforceability of the foreign judgment against the defendants.

The court held that the 'double part interest' was not penal, referencing the principles established in Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited and other relevant authorities. It found that the first defendant was likely aware of the proceedings, justifying the use of informal service. Consequently, the court confirmed the informal service and granted judgment in default against the first defendant. The foreign judgment was deemed enforceable against both defendants, based on the relevant provisions of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2025 (Vic) and the precedents set in Suzhou Haishun Investment Management Co Ltd v Zhao and Doe v Howard. The court distinguished Schnabel v Lui on the grounds that it did not align with the current legislative framework and case law.

The final orders of the court confirmed the enforceability of the foreign judgment against both defendants and directed the enforcement of the judgment sum, including interest, against them. The court also ordered that the first defendant pay the costs of the application.

Orders