Self Care Corporation Pty Ltd v Green Forest International Pty Ltd (No 14) - [2023] FedCFamC2G 868

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Self Care Corporation Pty Ltd v Green Forest International Pty Ltd (No 14) [2023] FedCFamC2G 868

File number(s): SYG 2771 of 2019

Judgment of: JUDGE BAIRD

Date of judgment: 10 October 2023

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to re‑open – judgment reserved – where applicants seek leave to re‑open to tender seven documents – application opposed – whether documents reasonably available earlier – Chinese criminal proceedings now concluded – foreign law – Chinese law proved – interests of justice – timeliness of production – significance of documents – any prejudice – each considered – application allowed – foreign judgment admitted for limited purposes pursuant to s 136 Evidence Act – documents admitted – exceptions to hearsay rule

Legislation:
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), ss 63, 64, 67, 69, 71, 75, 81, 136, 192

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act2021 (Cth), ss 190, 191

Evidence Regulations 1995 (Cth), reg 6

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), r 20.03

Cases cited:
Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union (WA Branch); Ex parte Ferguson (1986) 67 ALR 491

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Rich [2006] NSWSC 826; (2006) 235 ALR 587

Brookfield v Yevad Products Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 1376

Harman v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1983] 1 AC 280

Hearnev Street [2008] HCA 36; (2008) 235 CLR 125

MF Lady Pty Ltd v Henry Morgan Ltd [2022] FCA 978

Neilson v Overseas Projects Corporations of Victoria Ltd & Anor (2005) 223 CLR 331

Procter v Kalivis [2009] FCA 1518; (2009) 263 ALR 461

Quinn & Lawson [2023] FedCFamC1F 164

Reid v Brett [2005] VSC 18

Self Care Corporation Pty Ltd v Green Forest International Pty Ltd (No 9) [2021] FCCA 1866

Self Care Corporation Pty Ltd v Green Forest International Pty Ltd(No 11) [2022] FedCFamC2G 257

Self Care Corporation Pty Ltd v Green Forest International Pty Ltd (No 12) [2022] FedCFamC2G 1030

Spotlight Pty Ltd v NCON Australia Ltd [2012] VSCA 232; (2012) 46 VR 1

Telstra Corporation Ltd v Australian Competition & Consumer Commission [2008] FCA 1436; (2008) 171 FCR 174;

Top Plus Pty Ltd v Yi Star Pty Ltd [2023] FedCFamC2G 189

Division: Division 2 General Federal Law

Number of paragraphs: 173

Dates of hearing: 5, 6, 11 & 13 September 2023

Counsel for the Applicants: Mr J Hennessy SC with Mr C McMeniman

Solicitor for the Applicants: Gilbert + Tobin

Counsel for the First, Second, Fifteenth and Seventeenth Respondents: Mr D Parish

Solicitor for the First, Second, Fifteenth and Seventeenth Respondents: H + H Lawyers

Counsel for the Sixth Respondent: Mr B Le Plastrier with Mr R Sud

Solicitor for the Sixth Respondent: Gear and Co Lawyers

Solicitor for the Ninth and Fourteenth Respondents: Mr S Li, Viska Lawyers and Advisors

Counsel for the Sixteenth Respondent: Mr A Di Francesco

Solicitor for the Sixteenth Respondent: HWL Ebsworth
ORDERS

SYG 2771 of 2019

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
SELF CARE CORPORATION PTY LTD

First Applicant

SELF CARE IP HOLDINGS PTY LTD

Second Applicant

AND:
GREEN FOREST INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD

First Respondent (and others named in the Schedule)

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE BAIRD

DATE OF ORDER:

10 OCTOBER 2023

THE COURT:
In this Order Documents means the documents referred to in paragraph 1 and listed in paragraphs 2 and 3
1.GRANTS LEAVE to the applicants to reopen their case to tender the documents listed in Annexure A to the Application in a Proceeding filed by the applicants on 14 June 2023.
2.ADMITS into evidence in the applicants’ case in the proceeding:
(1)signed agreement between ‘Selfcare Corporation Pty Ltd’ and Yangfeng (Shanghai) Biotechnology Co Ltd, dated 6 March 2019;
(2)unsigned agreement between ‘Selfcare Corporation Pty Ltd’ and Yangfeng (Shanghai) Biotechnology Co Ltd, dated 3 July 2019;
(3)WeChat messages between Mr Emilio Wang and Ms WeiWei Lin between 13 March 2019 and 31 July 2019;
(4)WeChat messages between Mr Pascal Skelin and Mr Emilio Wang between 4 October 2019 and 14 October 2019;
(5)WeChat messages between Mr Emilio Wang and Mr Ivan Wang between 25 November 2019 and 14 May 2020;
(6)purported Letter of Authorisation dated 5 August 2019, and
(7)English translations of each of the above listed documents, all comprised in Exhibit SG‑2 to the affidavit of Ms Shihui (Kelly) Guo affirmed 15 June 2023 (Ms Guo’s affidavit).

3.ADMITS into evidence in the applicants’ case in the proceeding the Third Intermediate People’s Court of Shanghai Municipality Criminal Judgment (2022) Hu 03 Xing Zhong 67 and its English translation comprised in Exhibits SG‑1 and SG‑2 respectively to Ms Guo’s affidavit (together the Chinese Appeal Judgment):
(i)as against all respondents, limited to the following pursuant to s 136 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth):
1.The fact of the Chinese Appeal Judgment.
2. The Chinese Appeal Judgment identifies that Mr Emilio Wang’s appeal from his conviction at first instance by the Shanghai Court of the crime of counterfeiting Self Care’s registered freezeframe trade marks in China (with a fixed term of imprisonment imposed of three years and six months and a fine of RMB1.75 million) was dismissed, and his conviction, sentence and fine were upheld.
3. No issue estoppel arises in relation to matters alleged in this proceeding from the Chinese Appeal Judgment.
4. No damages were recovered or are recoverable by the applicants in the proceeding the subject of the Chinese Appeal Judgment. In the event that the applicants obtain any recovery, they will inform the Court and the represented parties.
5. The Chinese Appeal Judgment refers to the following documents before that Court (Appeal Court):
a. Chat history between Mr Emilio Wang and Mr Shigao Pan [Mr Pascal Skelin] which shows that Mr Emilio Wang and Mr Skelin have jointly established many companies over the years, and they have applied to the applicants for the distribution rights of “freezeframe” brand products in the name of the company they jointly established (page 8 of the Chinese Appeal Judgment); and

(ii) as against all respondents, except the sixth respondent, Mr Pascal Skelin, limited to the following pursuant to s 136 of the Evidence Act:
5.The Chinese Appeal Judgment refers to the following documents before the Appeal Court:
b. The trademark registration certificate, letter of authorisation and formula table of the product provided to Ms Weiwei Lin, manager of Yangfeng, at a meeting in February 2019 attended by Mr Emilio Wang, Mr Skelin and Ms Weiwei Lin (page 9 of Chinese Appeal Judgment).
c. The “purchase agreements, bank transfer statements, WeChat chat history” (page 10 of the Chinese Appeal Judgment).

4. DIRECTS the parties file and serve any submissions in relation to the Documents, supplementing their closing submissions in the proceeding:
(1)the applicants in chief by 24 October 2023;
(2)the respondents in response by 21 November 2023; and
(3)the applicants in reply by 5 December 2023.

5.STANDS OVER the Application for any arguments as to costs to a date to be fixed after consultation with the participating parties.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE BAIRD
INTRODUCTION

This is the fourteenth interlocutory judgment in this proceeding. After 36 days of final hearing occurring in several tranches during 2021 and 2022, I reserved the matter for judgment on 2 December 2022. Six months later, on 14 June 2022, the applicants, Self Care Corporation Pty Limited and Self Care IP Holdings Pty Limited (together, Self Care), filed the interlocutory Application presently before me, seeking leave to reopen their case to tender seven documents.
Self Care say these documents are fresh evidence not available to them at the time of hearing, that they are highly relevant to issues in dispute and are highly probative. Self Care submit that the documents are confirmatory and do not raise new issues. It is not genuinely disputed that the documents are confirmatory.
Three groups of participating respondents, namely the first, second, fifteenth and seventeenth respondents (the Green Forest parties), the sixth respondent (Mr Pascal Skelin), and the ninth and fourteenth respondents (the Yang/Wang parties) object to the grant of leave and to the tender of some or all of the seven documents. I identify the positions of each of those respondents in the course of these reasons.
The sixteenth respondent, Australian Vitamin Plus Pty Ltd (AVP), neither consents to, nor opposes, the Application. If I grant leave to reopen, AVP consents to the admission of the seven documents subject to limitations Self Care proposes.
For present purposes, the proceeding and the parties’ principal cases are sufficiently described in earlier interlocutory judgments I have delivered. In this judgment generally I use the terms and refer to the parties as I have done in Self Care Corporation Pty Ltd v Green Forest International Pty Ltd (No 3) [2021] FCCA 1277, and Self Care Corporation Pty Ltd v Green Forest International Pty Ltd (No 8) [2021] FCCA 1668.
The Wang Chinese criminal proceedings
On 28 November 2022, I admitted into evidence in the substantive hearing the first instance criminal judgment of the People’s Court of Yangpu District, Shanghai (2021) Hu 0110 Xing Chu No. 1018, and its English translation (Chinese Judgment): Self Care Corporation Pty Ltd v Green Forest International Pty Ltd(No 12) [2022] FedCFamC2G 1030 (Self Care No 12). I admitted the Chinese Judgment subject to certain limitations I set out in Self Care No 12 pursuant to s 136 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).
The Chinese Judgment identified that Mr Kefei (Emilio) Wang, the fifth respondent in this proceeding, was convicted on 31 August 2022 by the People’s Court of Yangpu District, Shanghai (Shanghai Court) at first instance of the crime of counterfeiting Self Care’s Chinese registered freezeframe trade marks.
As at the date of admission of the Chinese Judgment into evidence in this proceeding, the status of any appeal by Mr Emilio Wang from his conviction and sentence was not known to the Court or to any of the participating parties in this proceeding: see Self Care No 12 at [6].
It is not in dispute that on 10 March 2023, the Third Intermediate People’s Court of Shanghai Municipality (Appeal Court) ruled on the appeal proceeding filed by Mr Emilio Wang from the Chinese Judgment (Chinese Appeal Proceeding). Mr Emilio Wang’s appeal from the Chinese Judgment was dismissed. The Appeal Court unanimously gave judgment that ‘the appeal is dismissed, and the first instance decision is upheld. This ruling is final’.
THIS APPLICATION
The Documents Self Care seeks leave to reopen to tender
The first of the seven documents Self Care seeks leave to reopen to tender is a sealed copy of the Appeal Court’s judgment (2022) Hu 03 Xing Zhong 67 and its English translation (together the Chinese Appeal Judgment).
The remaining six documents that Self Care seeks leave to reopen to tender are:
(1)signed agreement between Selfcare Corporation Pty Ltd and Yangfeng (Shanghai) Biotechnology Co Ltd, dated 6 March 2019 (signed Yangfeng agreement);
(2)unsigned agreement between Selfcare Corporation Pty Ltd and Yangfeng, dated 3 July 2019 (unsigned further Yangfeng agreement);
(3)WeChat messages between Mr Emilio Wang and Ms WeiWei (Sarah) Lin, a representative of Yangfeng, between 13 March 2019 and 31 July 2019 (Emilio and WeiWei WeChat messages);
(4)WeChat messages between Mr Emilio Wang and Mr Skelin between 4 October 2019 and 14 October 2019 (Emilio and Skelin WeChat messages);
(5)WeChat messages between Mr Emilio Wang and Mr Ivan Wang between 25 November 2019 and 14 May 2020 (Emilio and Ivan WeChat messages); and
(6)purported Letter of Authorisation dated 5 August 2019 (‘Authorisation’ Letter).
Collectively, I refer to these six documents (and English translations, where made) as the China Indictment Documents. Together with the Chinese Appeal Judgment, where more convenient, I refer to them as the Documents.
The English translation of the Chinese Appeal Judgment and English translations of the China Indictment Documents contained in the Mandarin Chinese text have been made by Mandarin speaking lawyers at Gilbert + Tobin, GTDocs Lead Reviewer Ms Shihui (Kelly) Guo and GTDocs Specialist Ms Hiu Ming Fonia Chiu. Save for translating documents, Ms Guo and Ms Chiu have no involvement in the proceeding. I have previously ruled on Ms Chiu’s and Ms Guo’s expertise as translators, and admitted documents translated by them: see Self Care Corporation Pty Ltd v Green Forest International Pty Ltd (No 11) [2022] FedCFamC2G 257 (Self Care No 11), see inter alia at [45], [47], [56] and [57], and Self Care No 12. Relevantly, for the purposes of this Application, my ruling in Self Care No 11 on the experience, qualifications, and sufficiency of the expertise of Ms Guo and Ms Chiu applies.
Ms Chiu and Ms Guo have also translated the Chinese legislative and regulatory provisions relied upon in this Application variously by Self Care and the Yang/Wang parties.
Availability of the Documents
It is not in dispute that the Chinese Appeal Judgment was not available to Self Care at the conclusion of the hearing. It was not available until shortly after 10 March 2023. When, and whether, the China Indictment Documents could have been made available and tendered in the proceeding at any earlier time than June 2023 is a matter of dispute before me.
Self Care submits that the six China Indictment Documents could not have been disclosed by Self Care and used in this proceeding until after the Chinese criminal proceedings against Mr Emilio Wang finally concluded, which occurred only after the delivery of the Chinese Appeal Judgment. Self Care submits that upon being translated and identified as highly relevant they promptly brought the China Indictment Documents to the Court’s and the participating respondents’ attention. In support of the Application, they rely on the affidavit evidence of Mr Michael Williams, Self Care’s solicitor and partner at Gilbert + Tobin, Mr Daniel Plane, Self Care’s attorney and IP consultant in Hong Kong and mainland China, and Ms Lingling Chen, partner at Guangdong Sishi Law Firm, Self Care’s Chinese criminal lawyers for the Chinese Appeal Proceeding. In addition, they rely upon the translation affidavits made by Ms Guo and Ms Chiu, and exhibited documents.
No criticism of the timeliness of Gilbert + Tobin’s actions is made by any of the participating respondents or by this Court. Mr Williams was not required for cross‑examination.
Mr Plane is resident in Hong Kong. He is a partner at Simone Intellectual Property Services Asia Limited (SIPS) and, as I note above, is the attorney and IP consultant acting for Self Care in Hong Kong and mainland China: see Self Care Corporation Pty Ltd v Green Forest International Pty Ltd (No 9) [2021] FCCA 1866 at [10] (Self Care No 9). Previous affidavits made by Mr Plane have been read in the substantive hearing and in earlier interlocutory applications in this proceeding. He was not required on those occasions for cross-examination.
Following publication of the Chinese Appeal Judgment, Mr Plane emailed to Gilbert + Tobin two tranches of documents:
(a)on 23 March 2023, the evidence file maintained by Baoshan branch of the Shanghai Public Security Bureau (Shanghai PSB), who investigated the criminal activities of Mr Emilio Wang and transferred the case to the People’s Procuratorate of Baoshan District, Shanghai for public prosecution. The Shanghai PSB was the prosecutor before the first instance court and before the Appeal Court on the Chinese Appeal Proceeding; and
(b)on 2 May 2023, documents that were submitted by the parties in the criminal proceedings the subject of the Chinese Judgment and the Chinese Appeal Judgment,
(together, the Chinese Proceedings Documents). Mr Plane had received copies of these documents in the form of a compact disc from Ms Lingling Chen in late November 2022 in circumstances I expand upon below.
Mr Williams attests that he was not aware until he received the Chinese Proceedings Documents whether they would become available or, if so, when and under what conditions they may be made available. Most of the Chinese Proceedings Documents are in Mandarin Chinese. Upon receipt of the documents, Ms Chiu and Ms Guo translated them into English, which translations were completed on 1 June 2023. Upon being translated into English, Mr Williams reviewed them. He was not aware of the contents of the Chinese Proceedings Documents until they were translated and reviewed.
Within the Chinese Proceedings Documents Mr Williams identified the six China Indictment Documents as documents he believes are particularly relevant to the issues in dispute in the proceeding, are highly probative, and warrant the making of the present Application.
I accept Mr Williams’ evidence that each of the China Indictment Documents:
(a)has not been produced in the proceeding by any of the respondents;
(b)has not been available to Gilbert + Tobin prior to their release;
(c)has not been recovered in the course of any forensic imaging and analysis of the respondents’ devices pursuant to orders made by the Court namely, devices of each of the Green Forest parties, Mr Skelin, and AVP;
(d)has not been tendered by any party in the proceeding; and
(e)does not duplicate existing evidence in the proceeding.
RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES
The applicable principles on an application to reopen where the hearing has concluded but judgment is yet to be delivered do not appear to be in dispute. By reference to the authorities to which the parties drew my attention in the course of hearing this Application[1], the principles may be summarised, with some reiteration, as follows:
[1]Including, Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union (WA Branch); Ex parte Ferguson (1986) 67 ALR 491 at [493]-[494]; Smith v New South Wales Bar Association (1992) 176 CLR 256; (1992) 108 ALR 55; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Rich (ASIC v Rich) [2006] NSWSC 826; (2006) 235 ALR 587; Telstra Corporation Ltd v Australian Competition & Consumer Commission [2008] FCA 1436; (2008) 171 FCR 174 (at [209], Lindgren J); Spotlight Pty Ltd v NCON Australia Ltd [2012] VSCA 232; (2012) 46 VR 1 (inter alia at [25] citing with approval Kenny J in Inspector General in Bankruptcy v Bradshaw [2006] FCA 22 at [24]); MF Lady Pty Ltd v Henry Morgan Ltd [2022] FCA 978; Quinn & Lawson [2023] FedCFamC1F 164 (inter alia [12] and ff citing Habersberger J in Reid v Brett [2005] VSC 18); EB v CT (No 2) [2008] QSC 306.
(a)the power is discretionary;
(b)the overriding principle is that the Court consider whether, taken as a whole, the justice of the case favours the grant of leave to reopen: Spotlight at [26]. To put it another way, the discretion to grant leave is guided by the interests of justice; the essential issue being whether the Court is more able to do justice on the facts and circumstances of the case if the application is granted. However, what must be balanced is the granting of justice to both the applicants and the respondents: Quinn & Lawson at [22];
(c)although the classes are not closed, one of the four recognised classes where leave to reopen may be given is where fresh evidence, unavailable or not reasonably discoverable before, becomes known and available: Spotlight at [25];
(d)the matters bearing on the interests of justice are various. They include:
(i)the nature of the proceeding;
(ii)the significance of the further evidence in the context of the hearing;
(iii)the timeliness of the production of the evidence, and the explanation of any delay;
(iv)the embarrassment or prejudice to the other parties by reason of the late admission of the further evidence: Smith at [265]-[266]; and
(v)the public interest in the timely conclusion of litigation, and relatedly, that account be taken of the strain that litigation imposes on personal litigants which cannot always be measured in terms of money or an order for costs: Quinn & Lawson at [12], citing EB v CT (No. 2), referencing Smith.

As to the significance of the fresh evidence, the authorities have variously described this factor as:
(i)the importance of the issue on which the further evidence is sought to be adduced to the pleaded issues in the case;
(ii)the degree of relevance and probative value of the further evidence, and
(iii)relatedly, its potential to involve an undue waste of time: ASIC v Rich at [18], MF Lady;
(iv)whether the further evidence is so material that the interests of justice require its admission: Quinn & Lawson at [12];
(v)the probability that the additional evidence will affect the result: Telstra at [209].
As to the timeliness or delay in bringing the fresh evidence before the Court, the Court will have regard to:
(i)whether the occasion for calling the further evidence ought reasonably to have been foreseen;
(ii)whether it could not by reasonable diligence have been discovered earlier; and
(iii)the explanation offered by the party seeking leave.
In Spotlight at [17]-[18], the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria explained of the need for finality in litigation, cautioned that were applications to reopen to be allowed almost as of course, such applications would regularly be made, adding enormously to inefficiencies in the administration of justice, even if the reopened hearing was strictly confined. They further observe ‘very often, the boundaries of the reopened issues would then be hard to define and as difficult to protect’.
Recently, Jackson J in MF Lady, citing himself at [86] formulated the exercise of discretion in the following terms:
If success in re-opening is not likely to make any difference to the outcome of the trial, that would weigh against putting the parties and the Court to the delay, trouble and expenditure of resources involved in reopening.
As I said in Top Plus at [45H], to the above matters should be added observance of the overarching principles set out in ss 190 and 191 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) (FCFCOA Act).
Whilst respondents’ counsel before me have stressed that the fresh evidence must be so material as to affect the result, where, as in this proceeding, there is a multiplicity of issues and causes of action and a multiplicity of parties, I consider that the bar is placed too high to say that the evidence must affect the overall result.
TIMELINESS OF PRODUCTION & EXPLANATION OF AVAILABILITY
As I have stated above, no criticism is made of Gilbert + Tobin about their timing in disclosing the China Indictment Documents.
Counsel for the Green Forest parties and Mr Skelin submit however that Self Care cannot ‘hide behind’ their solicitors in Australia. They point to the fact that Mr Plane and SIPS were acting for Self Care in the Chinese criminal proceedings against Mr Emilio Wang. They submit that the chronology of Mr Plane’s knowledge and his communications and that of the Chinese lawyers who SIPS instructed are relevant to the question of when Self Care could, with reasonable diligence, have obtained the evidence and adduced it in this proceeding. They submit that the evidence could have been adduced, or at least brought to the Court’s attention, before closing submissions, and an adjournment then sought.
Mr Li on behalf of the Yang/Wang parties submits that the documents can never be disclosed and used in this proceeding. I return to this submission in the context of my consideration of Chinese law below.
Chronology of evidence and events concerning the China Indictment Documents
The evidence before me establishes the following chronology:
(a)31 July 2021: in an earlier affidavit read in the substantive proceeding (Plane 3), Mr Plane gave evidence that through Shanghai PSB’s investigations into suspected counterfeit freezeframe products, the Shanghai PSB had obtained documents that were in the possession of Mr Emilio Wang and Ms Weiwei Lin, and several devices of Mr Emilio Wang. As at 31 July 2021, documents in the possession of Shanghai PSB ‘relating to its ongoing investigation’ were not available to SIPS to produce at this time. Mr Plane was not cross-examined on this evidence;
(b)3 August 2021: Mr Plane was aware that Mr Emilio Wang’s phone seized by the Shanghai PSB in connection with their investigations held extensive records of text and voice communications over WeChat between Mr Emilio Wang and Mr Skelin, but due to the Shanghai PSB’s ongoing investigations, further details about those communications could not be disclosed at the time. Mr Plane was not cross‑examined on his state of knowledge and the availability of documents at this time: per Plane 4, also read in the substantive hearing;
(c)1 September 2022: the Chinese Judgment was delivered on 31 August 2022, and thereafter Ms Chiu and Ms Guo and their colleague, Ms Qucan (Charmaine) He received a copy of the Chinese Judgment in Mandarin and undertook the translation of the judgment from Chinese into English;
(d)7 September 2022: Mr Plane knew that Mr Emilio Wang had been convicted of the crime of counterfeiting and that ‘the documents from the indictment have not been released by the Shanghai PSB or the Court at this stage’. Again, Mr Plane was not cross‑examined on his state of knowledge of those documents and their availability at this time: per Plane 5, also read in the substantive hearing;
(e)9 September 2022: the lay evidence in the substantive proceeding concluded;
(f)14 September 2022: Self Care provided written notice to the participating respondents of their intention to tender and rely on the representations contained within the Chinese Judgment in accordance with the notice requirements under s 67(1) of the Evidence Act and reg 6 of the Evidence Regulations 2018 (Cth). Following upon that notice, on 28 November 2022 I heard and determined the application to tender that Chinese Judgment: see Self Care No 12;
(g)21 October 2022: Self Care filed its closing submissions‑in‑chief in the proceeding, and the Green Forest parties filed their closing submissions‑in‑chief on their cross‑claim;
(h)late October 2022: Mr Plane on behalf of Self Care instructed criminal lawyers in China to represent Self Care’s interest in the Chinese Appeal Proceeding, engaging Ms Lingling Chen of Guangdong Sishi Law Firm. Thereafter, as I return to below, Ms Lingling Chen filed a request with the Appeal Court to review the case file;
(i)11 November 2022: Self Care filed their closing submissions‑in‑answer on the cross‑claim;
(j)14, 15 and 16 November 2022: the Yang/Wang parties, Mr Skelin, Ms Huo (thirteenth respondent, self-represented), the Green Forest parties and AVP each filed their closing submissions in answer;
(k)on or about 19 November 2022: Ms Lingling Chen received a copy of the case file from the Appeal Court in order to review the case and prepare opinions to be expressed on behalf of Self Care during the appeal hearings, and informed Mr Plane of their receipt. Ms Lingling Chen thereafter by a compact disc, shared the Chinese Proceedings Documents with SIPS for the purpose of obtaining instructions to enable her to summarise and convey relevant opinions to the Appeal Court on Self Care’s behalf. Shortly after 19 November 2022 (Mr Plane’s evidence is within days, at most weeks), SIPS received the compact disc containing the Chinese Proceedings Documents from Ms Lingling Chen. Mr Plane, in turn, reported that fact to Ms Sonia Amoroso, Self Care’s director and CEO;
(l)23 and 26 November 2022: Self Care filed closing submissions-in-reply to the Green Forest parties, Yang/Wang parties, Ms Huo, and AVP, and the Green Forest parties filed submissions‑in‑reply on the cross‑claim, and thereafter, Self Care filed closing submissions‑in‑reply to Mr Skelin;
(m)28 November 2022: I heard and delivered Self Care No 12, admitting the Chinese Judgment into evidence;
(n)28 November-2 December 2022: hearing of oral closing submissions by the participating parties, judgment is reserved.
Completing the chronology, as I have recorded above at [9], and [18]-[20], the Chinese Appeal Proceeding concluded in March 2023, and thereafter Mr Plane emailed the Chinese Proceedings Documents to Gilbert + Tobin, the China Indictment Documents were identified, and this Application brought.
EXPLANATION FOR EVIDENCE NOT BEING LED AT HEARING
Chinese law limitations on disclosure
Although Mr Plane came into possession of the Chinese Proceedings Documents (and thus, although not ascertained until June 2023, the China Indictment Documents) in late November 2022 and then informed Ms Amoroso that he had received the compact disc, he understood that these documents could not be provided to Self Care’s Australian lawyers or be used in Australian proceedings. His evidence, and the genuineness of his belief as to what use could be made of the documents was not challenged, save that Mr Li put to Mr Plane that documents could never be disclosed or used, which proposition Mr Plane rejected. Ms Lingling Chen’s evidence was the same.
Self Care submits that the prohibition against disclosure or use of the China Indictment Documents while the Chinese criminal proceedings were on foot, and the lifting of this prohibition after the Chinese Appeal Judgment was delivered, is a matter of Chinese law, specifically, the law and regulations applicable to parties and their lawyers participating in criminal proceedings on foot in China.
The prohibition against the disclosure or use of the China Indictment Documents is to be determined as a question of fact. If a party fails to prove the content of the foreign law, then the law of the forum (Australia) will generally apply by default: Neilson v Overseas Projects Corporations of Victoria Ltd & Anor (2005) 223 CLR 331, per Gummow and Hayne JJ at [125], Callinan J at [249], Heydon J at [267].
If the default law of Australia were to apply, it is not disputed that the Court would apply the implied undertakings pursuant to the principle in Harman v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1983] 1 AC 280, which prohibition is relieved upon the documents being read or referred to in open court: Hearnev Street [2008] HCA 36; (2008) 235 CLR 125 at [96]; Federal Court Rules (Cth) 2011 r 20.03.
Before me, Self Care and the Yang/Wang parties each adduced evidence of Chinese law.
Self Care relies on the evidence of Mr Plane and Ms Lingling Chen. The Yang/Wang parties rely on the evidence of Mr Jize Yang, a practising Chinese criminal lawyer based in China. Neither the Green Forest parties nor Mr Skelin filed any evidence of Chinese law. Mr Parish, counsel for the Green Forest parties, and Mr Li, solicitor for the Yang/Wang parties, each cross‑examined Mr Plane, who was located in Hong Kong. Mr Li cross‑examined Ms Lingling Chen, also located in Hong Kong. Mr Hennessy SC for Self Care cross‑examined Mr Jize Yang, located in Suqian City, China. Each of Ms Lingling Chen and Mr Jize Yang were cross‑examined with the assistance of an interpreter present in the Court in Sydney.
Mr Plane’s and Ms Lingling Chen’s evidence and understanding of the applicable Chinese law
Mr Plane gave affidavit evidence on information and belief identifying the source of his information and his understanding as Ms Lingling Chen, who is resident in China. As I have adverted to above, Ms Lingling Chen is the Chinese legal representative representing Self Care in its capacity as the victim in the Chinese Appeal Proceeding.
Mr Plane states that the relevant legal provisions under Chinese law applicable to Ms Lingling Chen’s conduct as the victim’s lawyer in the Chinese Appeal Proceeding are Article 37 and Article 252 of the (2017) Regulations on the Professional Handling of Criminal Cases by Lawyers.
Mr Plane also identifies that Article 65 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China is the relevant provision of the Interpretation of the Supremes People’s Court applicable to Ms Lingling Chen’s conduct as a lawyer acting on behalf of a victim in a criminal case. Responding to Mr Jize Yang’s written report (see below at [53]-[58]), Mr Plane states that neither Article 55 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court or Article 308 of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China is relevant to Mr Emilio Wang’s criminal prosecution in China and the Chinese Appeal Proceeding because the proceedings did not contain evidence that was confidential.
As a resident of Hong Kong, Mr Plane is not subject to any restrictions on the taking of oaths within mainland China for evidence used in foreign proceedings. As to those restrictions and practical consequences for Chinese employees of SIPS, see Self Care No 9 at [12]-[13]. Mr Plane deposes that those restrictions apply equally to Self Care’s Chinese criminal lawyers, including Ms Lingling Chen, and to the persons within the People’s Procuratorate of Baoshan District, Shanghai and within the relevant Chinese courts who provided the Chinese Appeal Judgment and the Chinese Proceedings Documents to Self Care’s Chinese criminal lawyers.
In response to criticisms by Mr Skelin that Ms Lingling Chen had not provided an affidavit (as at the date of submissions), and that Self Care had not proposed to fly her to Sydney to give sworn evidence and be cross‑examined, and criticisms to similar effect by raised by the Yang/Wang parties, Ms Lingling Chen travelled to Hong Kong, made two affidavits and stated her availability for cross‑examination.
In her first affidavit, Ms Lingling Chen gives evidence of her legal qualifications and experience both as defense attorney and, since 2019, primarily representing victims in criminal proceedings in mainland China. Her expertise is not challenged. Ms Lingling Chen confirms that she advised Mr Plane and his colleagues at SIPS as Mr Plane attested (see also, above at [34] and below at [48]‑[49]), that his paragraphs reflect her understanding of the matters and legal principles he sets out, and that the content of those paragraphs is consistent with her advice. She adopts that content as her evidence. Her experience is consistent with Mr Plane’s.
In her second affidavit, Ms Lingling Chen further responds to Mr Jize Yang’s report and affidavit, stating that Article 37 does not apply to victims’ lawyers, and that where an article of the (2017) Regulations applies to victims’ lawyers, it makes express reference to the term ‘victim’, and by way of example references Articles 8, 136, 141 and 142. Ms Lingling Chen disputes Mr Jize Yang’s opinion that evidence cannot ever be used after criminal proceedings are concluded, and attests to her experience and provides several examples of cases demonstrating subsequent use of evidence from criminal proceedings. I return to this evidence later in these reasons.
In cross‑examination each of Mr Plane and Ms Lingling Chen confirmed their understanding and experience that only after the final judgment is delivered can evidence from criminal proceedings in China then be used in civil lawsuits that are subsequently brought by victim entities, and that the case file materials can then be disclosed and used.
In sum, as I have adverted to above, whilst SIPS and Mr Plane received by compact disc the Chinese Proceedings Documents in about late November 2022 from Ms Lingling Chen, Mr Plane attests that he understood that he could not provide the documents to Self Care or their Australian lawyers or make use of them in Australian proceedings until after the Chinese Appeal Proceeding had concluded and the decision was final. Following the publication of the Chinese Appeal Judgment, and following conversations his SIPS colleague Ms Grace Chen had with Ms Lingling Chen, Mr Plane came to understand that the Chinese Proceedings Documents (and thus the China Indictment Documents) could be then shared with Gilbert + Tobin.
Mr Plane attests he is further advised by Ms Lingling Chen, and believes that since the Chinese Appeal Judgment was delivered,
finalising the appeal proceedings and fully confirming the evidentiary validity and effect of the [Chinese Proceedings Documents], these documents can now be used by Self Care in civil proceedings related to the findings of fact in the criminal case involving Mr Kefei (Emilio) Wang (such as these proceedings), in order to obtain compensation for his and his associates’ and customers’ acts of intellectual property infringement. This right is not limited to civil proceedings in China and extends to civil proceedings in Australia, including [the present proceeding].
And that on 14 March 2023,
Ms Lingling Chen [referred to by Mr Plane as ‘CHEN Lingling’] contacted Cheng Tingting, the judge who heard Mr Emilio Wang’s criminal appeal, by telephone to confirm her understanding on whether a written request needed to be filed with the Appeal Court for Self Care to use [the PSB file] in the form in which it was held by the Appeal Court. The Judge advised Ms Lingling Chen that the PSB file had been legally obtained by Self Care through her as its Chinese criminal lawyer and that Self Care is legally permitted to make use of that file with no need for a written application to or permission from the Court to do so. The Judge further advised Ms Lingling Chen that, if she wished, because the case has been closed at the Court and the PSB file has been returned to the Shanghai PSB by the Court, Self Care had the option to apply to the Shanghai PSB to obtain an original copy of the PSB file that does not bear the red watermark that appears on the corresponding documents from the [Chinese Proceedings Documents], but that this was not a required step for the [documents] to be used by Self Care in separate civil proceedings.
On the face of the Chinese Appeal Judgment (in translation), I am satisfied that Cheng Tingting was one of the three judges comprising that Appeal Court. No action has been taken by the Appeal Court or the Shanghai PSB since Ms Lingling Chen’s telephone call to restrict use of the Chinese Proceedings Documents or to advise her that use of the Chinese Proceedings Documents is restricted or being investigated.
In cross‑examination Ms Lingling Chen confirmed her affidavit evidence. Article 37 was read in Chinese to Ms Lingling Chen and confirmed by her (being the Chinese text which Ms Guo translated, exhibited to her affidavit sworn 28 July 2023). Ms Lingling Chen stated:
... there are differences to information disclosure. It depends on whether the case is still ongoing or whether it’s finalised. Also, it’s different when the information is ... close [disclosed] to a different group of people. They are also different.
… because if it’s about disclosure to the victim, then according to PRC Criminal Proceeding Regulations, it is actually supported by the regulation [Article 71]. However, if it’s disclosed - to be disclosed to the public, then it’s subjected to limitation in Article 37. While I was the legal representative of this case, I did not disclose any information about this case to the society to the public. As far as I know, Self Care also did not disclose any information about this case to the general public.
… Based on - based on Article 37 as a victim’s legal representative for the purpose of prepare this case it is necessary and also it’s consistent with the stipulation in Article 37 to disclose information to a Self Care company as well as its legal representative and the SIPS company and Mr Daniel Plane. By reading the last sentence of Article 37 you can find the exclusion term is it can be used for purpose for defending this case or legal representative as well as other methods. So the authorisation letter we submitted to the court can prove that Mr Daniel [Plane] together with SIPS company was legally representing Self Care and my authorisation power was also originated from that letter. I agree that lawyers cannot disclose information to the media or public society, but it is allowed by law for me to disclose information to Self Care to - to Mr Plane’s and also SIPS company.
MsLingling Chen further explained:
So the Chinese legal system has specific limits on cities [citizens] and some freedom - speech freedom, and also, Mr Li did not provide any Chinese law which can impose limits on Self Care in - in terms of disclosing information about the case and also its limit in using it for, like, civil or other Australian legal proceedings. Also - also, after I received the inquiry from Self Care about whether the - can use those evidence or not, I actually contacted the judge who was in charge of this matter and was granted consent of using the evidence.
As to Ms Lingling Chen’s conversation with Judge Cheng Tingting, see above at [49].
Mr Jize Yang’s evidence of Chinese law

Mr Jize Yang is a practising Chinese lawyer based in Suqian City, Jiangsu Province, China. He graduated in 1999. He appears appropriately credentialled. He practises in Chinese criminal law, with his main areas of practice being criminal defence, administrative law litigation and representation in second instance and re‑trial cases in civil and commercial matters. He is a native Chinese language speaker. He states that he has a working knowledge of English language, but is not fluent in English language speaking.
Mr Jize Yang made an expert report in Chinese, which it appears from its face to be translated into English by a NAATI qualified translator. After Self Care raised several objections, Mr Jize Yang made an affidavit, translated into English by Mr Li. In his affidavit Mr Jize Yang attested that he received his instructions orally from Mr Li, and he did not require any letter of instruction to prepare his expert opinion. He stated that the questions he was required to answer were very clear. He attested that he had been provided the Harmonised Expert Witness Code of Conduct from the Federal Court of Australia website by Mr Li, and he agreed to be bound by it.
Mr Jize Yang organised his report in 3 parts: first, his tasks, secondly, his qualifications, and thirdly, his opinion. In respect of his tasks, and by way of introduction, Mr Jize Yang:
(a)stated that he had read the affidavit evidence‑in‑chief provided by Self Care on the Application of Mr Plane, Ms Chiu, Ms Guo, and Mr Williams, the Application and letter dated 14 June 2023 from Gilbert + Tobin to the parties regarding the Application;
(b)set out the three legal issues on which Mr Li for the Yang/Wang parties sought his expert opinion; and
(c)set out the structure of his report, and made a statement of independent and objective expert opinion.
In answer to the first question he was asked: Can the lawyer representing the victim disclose the evidentiary materials in the criminal file after the judgment in the criminal case has entered into force? Mr Jize Yang referred to, and apparently quoted, Article 37 in his report. As I expand upon below, I am satisfied that some text was omitted. In cross‑examination he stated that if text of the Article was omitted from the English translation, that was not his intention. Mr Jize Yang continued his opinion:
Furthermore, the lawyer is not allowed to utilize such information or materials for any purposes other than defense or representation in relation to the specific criminal case. Otherwise, it will be considered a violation of this regulation. There have been very few lawyers in China who violated these provisions and they have been punished severely.
In answer to the second question: Under what circumstances can evidentiary materials in a criminal file be disclosed? Mr Jize Yang stated:
During my legal career of 24 years, I have not encountered any cases where the court has released the evidential materials in the criminal case file after the criminal verdict has taken effect. The criminal case file can only be used for the criminal trial process or judicial supervision process of that case. Disclosure for other reasons is not allowed. In China it is not possible for the court to authorize lawyers or independently initiate disclosure of criminal case files. …
In support Mr Jize Yang referred to Article 55 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court.
The third question Mr Jize Yang was asked to opine on was: Are there any legal provisions in China that restrict Chinese residents from testifying in foreign proceedings? He stated that there is no such law or regulation.
Mr Jize Yang’s evidence can be accorded no weight
Mr Jize Yang was discredited in cross‑examination. For the reasons I expand upon below, I give his opinion no weight.
Mr Jize Yang’s experience as a criminal defence lawyer practising in China is not contested. On the evidence before me, however, for at least the following reasons, I have concluded that both his written and his oral evidence is unsatisfactory. Mr Jize Yang’s written evidence and his evidence under cross‑examination was contradicted by documents ultimately produced by Mr Li in response to the call by Self Care during the hearing of the Application and further to orders of the Court. Mr Jize Yang refused to answer a number of questions put to him by Mr Hennessy SC in cross-examination.
Non-exhaustively, cross‑examination and documents tendered revealed that:
(a)Mr Jize Yang’s written evidence was that he was instructed by Mr Li. However, he was approached by Mr Shuhai Bai, Mr Emilio Wang’s criminal defence lawyer in the Chinese criminal proceeding at first instance and in the Chinese Appeal Proceeding;
(b)Mr Jize Yang knew Mr Bai from school days. They went to college - to university - together. Mr Bai introduced Mr Li and Mr Jize Yang;
(c)Mr Bai instructed Mr Jize Yang. In the preparation of his report, Mr Jize Yang communicated with Mr Bai, and not directly one-to-one with Mr Li;
(d)Mr Bai gave Mr Li instructions about which questions to ask Mr Jize Yang;
(e)Mr Jize Yang’s oral evidence was that Mr Bai came to visit Mr Jize Yang in his city to ask him the questions addressed in the expert report, and Mr Bai typed up the opinion:
My expert opinion was prepared using Mr Bai’s computer when we met, so I stated that orally. He typed it up. It was then sent to Mr Li subsequently.
… Mr Li then viewed it, sent it back to me, I signed it, and then Mr Bai scanned it and sent it back to Mr Li again.
(f)Mr Bai was the author of each of the draft reports (including template reports) for Mr Jize Yang produced to the Court by Mr Li;
(g)as to the affidavits and other documents that Mr Jize Yang had stated in his report that he had received and read (see above at [54(a)]), those in the English language that he received he did not read: “I don’t speak the language. So I couldn’t read it. With the documents in Chinese I - I read through it quickly.” From the WeChat messages produced by Mr Li and tendered it is apparent that Mr Williams’, Mr Plane’s, Ms Guo’s and Ms Chiu’s affidavits‑in‑chief and Application were sent as pdfs as sealed, in English, save - it is reasonable to assume - for the Chinese text contained in their exhibits included in the pdfs (the Chinese Appeal Judgment, and the China Indictment Documents). At most, Mr Yang did not review any of them “in details”;
(h)Mr Jize Yang had not read Ms Lingling Chen’s evidence, or the judgments she referenced in her second affidavit, although it appeared that Mr Li had sent him an email prior to Mr Jize Yang’s court appearance, which he believed contained those attachments.
Further adversely affecting the reliability of his opinion, Mr Jize Yang’s evidence and Mr Plane’s evidence establishes that some content in Mr Jize Yang’s expert report is word for word the same as content contained in the report of another Chinese lawyer also put forward by the Yang/Wang parties as an expert in Chinese law, which report was not read, that witness not being available to give evidence. This commonality is not explained.
Chinese law – relevant provisions
I am satisfied on the above evidence that the Chinese law provisions relevant to the prohibition on disclosure, use, and the circumstances pertaining to disclosure and use over time of the Chinese Proceedings Documents by Ms Lingling Chen and her firm, Mr Plane and SIPS, and Self Care are the below, noting that for completeness, on occasions I have set out the whole of various provisions, not limited to the relevant particular sentence or sub‑paragraph.
Regulations on the Professional Handling of Criminal Cases by Lawyers (2017)
In evidence on the Application is the Chinese text of Articles 8, 37, 136, 141, 142 and 252 of the 2017 Regulations referred to variously by Ms Lingling Chen, Mr Plane, and by Mr Jize Yang, together with their English translations made by Ms Guo.
Article 8 provides:
Lawyers participating in criminal proceedings may engage in the following business:
(1)      to be entrusted by a criminal suspect or defendant and act as their defender. Where the close relatives, other relatives or friends or organisations of the criminal suspect or the defendant entrusted the lawyer on the criminal suspect or the defendant’s behalf, it must be confirmed by the criminal suspect or the defendant;
(2)      to be entrusted by guardians or close relatives of minors or persons with mental illness who are suspected of committing a crime and act as their defender;
(3)      to be entrusted by victims in cases of public prosecution, their legal representatives or close relatives, or by private individuals initiating a prosecution in cases of private prosecution or their legal representatives, or by parties to an incidental civil proceeding in connection with a criminal case or their legal representatives, and act as their agent ad litem;
…
(9)      other business related to the criminal proceedings.
Article 37 comprises 3 sentences. It provides (emphasis added identifies text omitted from Mr Jize Yang’s quoting of the Article in his report):
Case file materials obtained by lawyers participating in criminal proceedings shall not be provided to relatives or friends of the criminal suspect or the defendant, or any other organisations and individuals, and shall not be disclosed to the media or the public without authorisation.
If the case file materials consulted, extracted, or reproduced by defense lawyers are state secrets, they shall obtain the approval of the people’s procuratorate and the people’s court and shall abide by the regulations on state secrets. Lawyers must not violate regulations by disclosing or disseminating any crucial case information or case file materials, or using them for purposes other than defense and representation in relation to the case.
Article 136 provides:
Lawyers may be entrusted by victims, close relatives of deceased victims or statutory agents of victims who have no capacity or limited capacity, and act as their agent ad litem.
Lawyers may act as agents ad litem of the plaintiff or the defendant in an incidental civil proceeding in connection with a criminal case.
Article 252 provides:
Lawyers shall perform their duties in accordance with legal procedures, and shall not affect the handling of cases in accordance with the law in the following improper ways:
(1)      Providing legal services to the party, intervening in the case, or interfering with the legal handling of the case in one’s capacity as a lawyer, without being retained by the party or appointed by a legal aid institution;
(2)      Making distorted or misleading publicity and comments on cases that they or other lawyers are handling, and maliciously hyping the case;
(3)      Using methods such as organising groups, collecting signatures, publishing open letters, organising online gatherings or solidarity, or, in the name of individual case studies, creating pressure from public opinion, or attacking or slandering judicial organs and the judicial system;
(4)      Violating regulations to disclose or disseminate information or materials in cases that are not tried in public, or important information and evidentiary materials obtained by oneself or other lawyers during the course of handling the case.
Articles 141 and 142 of the 2017 Regulations were both referred to by Ms Lingling Chen as being examples where provisions made explicit reference to the term ‘victim’. Those articles are in evidence (in Chinese and in English translations). I am satisfied that they are examples of provisions which do make express reference to the victim’s lawyer. Each article is concerned with the conduct of lawyers of the victim during court proceedings. Neither is otherwise relevant. The chapeau to Article 141 makes this clear: ‘During court proceedings, lawyers of the victim shall guide, assist or represent the client in exercising the following litigation rights in accordance with the law’. Similarly, Article 142 states:
During the court hearing, the lawyer of the victim may debate with the defendant and the defender of the defendant. Where the opinion of the victim’s lawyer is inconsistent with the public prosecution’s opinion, the victim’s lawyer shall independently express his or her opinion in order to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the victim.
The Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (2021)
Mr Jize Yang referred to Article 55 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court. It provides:
Where case file materials that are consulted, extracted or reproduced involve state secrets, commercial secrets, or personal privacy, they shall be kept confidential; information and materials in cases that are not tried in public, or important information and evidentiary materials that are learned in the process of handling the case, shall not be divulged or disclosed in violation of regulations and shall not be used for purposes other than handling the case. The people’s courts may require relevant persons to give an undertaking. Where the provisions of the preceding paragraph are violated, the people’s courts may notify the judicial-administrative organ or relevant departments and suggest corresponding punishments; where a crime is constituted, criminal responsibility shall be investigated in accordance with the law.
On the evidence before me I am satisfied that Article 55 is irrelevant to the issues before me. Mr Plane’s and Ms Lingling Chen’s evidence is that the relevant Article of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court is Article 65, and not Article 55.
Mr Plane’s and Ms Lingling Chen’s evidence is that their experiences as instructing attorney of Self Care’s Chinese criminal lawyers in the first instance criminal proceeding against Mr Emilio Wang and in the Chinese Appeal Proceeding, and as its Chinese legal representative in the Chinese Appeal Proceeding, respectively, are that both proceedings were public proceedings, with public hearings, in which no evidence was treated by the Court as confidential or otherwise sensitive in any way and in which no part of the proceeding was held in closed court. Their evidence is that both proceedings related solely to commercial discussions between Mr Emilio Wang and other third parties, and did not involve any state secrets, trade or commercial secrets or issues of personal privacy, nor did Mr Emilio Wang claim that there were any such issues.
Their evidence of their experiences was not challenged in cross‑examination. I am satisfied on the evidence before me that Article 55 is not relevant to the present circumstances, and that Article 65 is the relevant article.
Article 65 provides:
Lawyers acting as agents ad litem may consult, extract, or reproduce case file materials. Other agents ad litem may also consult, extract, and reproduce case file materials with the permission of the people’s court.
Where lawyers act as agents ad litem and need to collect or acquire evidence related to the case, the provisions of Article 59 to Article 61 of this Interpretation shall be referred to and applied.
Consideration - Chinese law
I am satisfied on the evidence of Ms Lingling Chen and Mr Plane, and Ms Guo’s translations of the provisions of Chinese law that I have set out above, that Self Care has proved the Chinese law regulating the disclosure and use of documents – evidentiary and other case file materials – and information obtained by lawyers representing victim entities, their instructors and the victim entities participating in criminal proceedings on foot in China. Specifically, I am informed of the Chinese law and regulations on the disclosure and use of the Chinese Proceedings Documents, and contained within them, the China Indictment Documents, applying to Ms Lingling Chen and her firm, and Mr Plane and his firm SIPS, and their conduct. My findings on the provisions set out above and their applicability are as follows:
Article 8 of the 2017 Regulations is concerned with the regulation of the business of lawyers participating in criminal proceedings. Relevantly, further to sub‑article 8(3) lawyers may act as agents ad litem for the victim in a criminal proceeding who may be the plaintiff in an incidental civil proceeding in connection with the criminal case. Article 136 provides to similar effect.
In sum, Articles 8(3) and 136 of the 2017 Regulations, and Article 65 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court permit lawyers acting for victim entities to act as agents ad litem in incidental civil proceedings in connection with a criminal case. I so find.
As I have adverted to earlier in these reasons, the translation of Article 37 was the subject of some confusion during Mr Jize Yang’s oral evidence (to put it most beneficially to Mr Jize Yang). As best as can be untangled from Mr Jize Yang’s oral evidence and accusations made during his evidence, if (as it does) the English translation of the first sentence of Article 37 quoted in his report omitted the phrase ‘without authorisation’ concluding the first sentence, that was not Mr Jize Yang’s intention.
Ms Guo translated Article 37 from the Chinese text provided by Mr Plane. Mr Plane, on advice from Ms Lingling Chen, identified that Mr Jize Yang’s opinion provided an incomplete and/or an inaccurate account of the relevant legal provision. Ms Guo was not required for cross‑examination. I am satisfied that I can rely on Ms Guo’s translation as accurate and complete.
Whilst I have concluded that Mr Jize Yang’s evidence can be accorded no weight, I note that he too has identified that the applicable provision regulating the disclosure and use by Chinese lawyers representing victim entities of the Chinese Proceedings Documents is Article 37 of the 2017 Regulations. For the reasons I have explained above, I am satisfied that the text of Article 37 is that I have recorded at [66], and accordingly that the first sentence includes, and concludes with, the words ‘without authorisation’. I so find.
Article 37 is concerned with case file materials and information and their use. The first sentence, relevantly, prohibits the disclosure of case file materials to the media or the public unless authorised by the criminal court in China.
The second sentence of Article 37 is concerned with defence lawyers and is directed to the circumstances where the case materials are state secrets. Defence lawyers may obtain approval to use those materials. This part of Article 37 is not applicable to the circumstances before me.
The last sentence of Article 37 requires lawyers to comply with regulations regarding disclosure of case information. It permits use for the purposes of defence and ‘representation in relation to the case’. I consider that the phrase encompasses civil proceedings related to the criminal case.
Applying the Chinese law so proved, I find that Article 37 of the 2017 Regulations prohibits the disclosure and use of the Chinese Proceedings Documents, including the China Indictment Documents, by Self Care’s Chinese legal representatives and thus SIPS during the currency of the Chinese criminal proceeding against Mr Emilio Wang, and the Chinese Appeal Proceeding, save for the purposes of the representation of Self Care as the victim entity in those proceedings.
I consider that the distinction Ms Lingling Chen draws between the use that a victim’s lawyer may make of case file materials when a criminal prosecution is on foot, and after the appeal proceeding has concluded, when judgment is released, is reasonably available from the use of the present participle in the phrase ‘lawyers participating in criminal proceedings’ in the first sentence. Whilst I observe also that on the plain reading of the text of Article 37 that the prohibitions on disclosure and use of case materials are not expressed to continue to apply after finalisation of the subject criminal proceedings, given the circumstances before me, it is not necessary to form a concluded view.

This is because I am satisfied that on 14 March 2023 after the delivery of the Chinese Appeal Judgment, in accordance with Article 37 of the 2017 Regulations and also Article 65 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court Ms Lingling Chen obtained express authorisation from the Appeal Court (Judge Cheng Tingting), to disclose the Chinese Proceedings Documents, and therefore the China Indictment Documents, to Self Care for Self Care’s use in this proceeding. I so find.
Turning to Article 252 of the 2017 Regulations, the chapeau to the article directs attention to the conduct of lawyers pending trial and while the criminal case is yet to be determined: lawyers must not ‘affect the handling of cases in accordance with the law’. Relevantly, sub‑article (4) is concerned with ensuring that information or materials in relation to a criminal case are not disclosed by lawyers where a case is not tried in public (by ‘violating regulations …’), and otherwise that information or materials are not disclosed ‘during the course of handling the case’, namely, until the case is tried in public, and finalised. I am satisfied that the article is not concerned with limiting the use or disclosure of materials after the finalisation of a criminal case that has been heard in public. In addition, Articles 8 and 136 permit lawyers for victim entities to act as agents ad liten in incidental civil proceedings.
Accordingly, applying the abovementioned provisions of Chinese law, I am satisfied on the evidence that the Chinese Proceedings Documents could not be disclosed to Self Care or its Australian lawyers for consideration for use in this proceeding prior to the delivery of the Chinese Appeal Judgment and the finalisation of the Chinese criminal proceedings against Mr Emilio Wang, and thus the China Indictment Documents could not with reasonable diligence have been identified by Self Care and sought to be used in this proceeding prior to June 2023.
Common use of criminal case file materials by victim entities in subsequent civil proceedings
I am confirmed in my construction and application of Chinese law to the disclosure and use obligations of victims’ lawyers, and my rejection of the position contended for by the Yang/Wang parties that case file materials could never be disclosed or used, by the evidence which I set out below of Mr Plane and Ms Lingling Chen that after finalisation of the criminal proceedings, use of such materials by victims acting as plaintiffs in corresponding civil proceedings is common, and by their provision of examples of civil cases which have made such use.
Mr Plane reads and understands both English and Chinese. He attests that based on his experience of over 20 years instructing lawyers in both civil and criminal proceedings in China relating to intellectual property infringement, following the publication of judgment in criminal proceedings, it is common for the victims of those crimes to go on to file corresponding civil law cases, relying on the factual and legal findings in the criminal judgments, as well as on the materials from the investigation files used throughout the prosecution of the criminal case and other documents filed by the parties during the criminal case and any appeal. He attests the use of the materials enables the victims of crime to seek financial compensation for the infringements without the need to re‑investigate the facts and findings in the criminal judgment. He states that this is important in practice because no financial compensation is otherwise available through criminal proceedings.
Mr Plane’s evidence is that use of materials from criminal cases is regularly and expressly supported by civil case judges across China. By way of example, he exhibits a Chinese civil judgment (2014) Su Zhong Zhi Min Chu no. 0108, in which Mr Jize Yang acted for the plaintiff, the victim of the criminal defendant, and the plaintiff made express use of criminal investigation files from related criminal proceedings as evidence to support their claims of trade mark infringement against the downstream distributor of the criminal defendant in a related civil trial.
Mr Plane confirmed his evidence during his cross-examination:
On my understanding, and from my own experience, it’s incredibly common in the case of criminal proceedings which have been concluded, for victims to file separate civil lawsuits and to obtain access to those precise materials through requests, and access given by the criminal court, and those materials form the basis of the civil suit. And here, and even though it was not required, there was no - absolutely no obligation, because these proceedings were finalised, it’s a final appellate decision, we did the belts and braces approach, and Ms Chen actually approached the court and asked, specifically - I won’t say asked, she informed the court that she was going to be using the materials in separate civil proceedings and was told to go for her life. And if there was any reason not, I’m quite surprised that there hasn’t been an application to the Shanghai court to - to try to prevent it. So I just wholeheartedly disagree with the premise. This is absolutely able to be used in these proceedings and in any other civil proceedings in China.
As I have adverted to above, in her second affidavit, Ms Lingling Chen attests to her awareness of a number of cases where the evidential materials in the criminal case file have been released after the criminal verdict has taken effect. Inter alia, she provides 3 recent examples of cases where such materials have been used in follow on civil litigations for trade mark infringement, each of which is in evidence in both Chinese text and English translation.
When cross-examining her, Mr Li did not challenge Ms Lingling Chen on the above examples. Rather, he sought to suggest they were exceptional instances:
MR LI:Yes, Ms Chen. You replied to Mr Jize Yang’s expert opinions affidavit. You refer to three Chinese judgments in which some criminal evidence material are used, subsequently, in a civil case; is that true?
THE INTERPRETER: That’s correct. Judgment clearly recorded that evidence from precious [previous] criminal matters were part - part of the previous criminal matters. Evidence from those matters were used.
MR LI:Your Honour, I will make this proposition right away. It’s my proposition that the three cases - it’s my proposition that there are tens of millions of published cases on the Chinese published cases website and you refer - you reference to three cases can be the exceptional cases that the criminal evidence material used in civil cases. Would that be the case?
THE INTERPRETER: Those are not exceptional cases. Those are common cases. Even in cases I represented, the plaintiffs would usually disclose the information they obtained from a previous criminal matters for the purpose of using them in subsequent civil matters, in order to pursue the other party’s responsibilities.
It follows that, the relevant Chinese law being identified and proved, and determining that I can interpret and apply it to the circumstances before me, the position under Australian law does not arise for consideration. If, however, I am wrong, I am satisfied that pursuant to Ms Lingling Chen’s conversation with Judge Cheng Tingting Self Care obtained the leave of the Appeal Court to disclose and use the Chinese Indictment Documents in this proceeding, and accordingly that disclosure and use of those documents is now permitted.
Respondents’ other submissions – explanation and authenticity
Green Forest parties’ submissions
Mr Parish does not make the submission that Ms Amoroso or Self Care knew of the China Indictment Documents before March 2023. He does submit that at least as at 28 November 2022, the first day of oral closing submissions, Ms Amoroso knew that there were documents in Mr Plane’s hands that pertained to the Chinese indictment of Mr Emilio Wang, in the context of the information that Mr Plane had obtained and disclosed in 2021 and 2022 that I have set out in the above chronology.
Mr Parish submits that it is irrelevant that Ms Amoroso did not know the contents of those documents. It suffices that a director of Self Care, who had obligations to the Court in respect of the overarching principles, sat on their hands knowing that at some point in the future, they may wish to rely on further documents when they became available for their use.
Mr Parish submits that Self Care ought to have sought an adjournment of the hearing at that time, and that they did not do so tells against granting leave to reopen, citing MF Lady at [100]. There, Jackson J held the defendant’s decision not to seek an adjournment at the hearing against its subsequent application for leave to reopen, in circumstances where the fresh evidence – 3 annual reports including audited accounts – was not available at the hearing, but the audit was expected (it is not clear by whom) to be concluded within a week of closing submissions, and where the option of an adjournment application was raised in discussions between the bar and bench at the hearing, but was not taken. The reasons are otherwise opaque on those discussions, and whether his Honour then expressed any views at the prospect of an adjournment.
Consideration
I am not persuaded by Mr Parish’s submissions. To the extent disclosed, MF Lady was concerned with very different facts, and circumstances. I do not consider that Mr Plane’s knowledge as imparted to the Court in his affidavits read at the hearing (see chronology), provides any reasonable basis to divine the identity and content of the Chinese Proceedings Documents, and within that content, specifically the China Indictment Documents. None of the fact of the China Indictment Documents or their contents and relevance were known to Ms Amoroso.
As at 28 November 2022, the participating parties in this proceeding did not know when the Chinese Appeal Proceeding might be heard and determined, and did not know the outcome of the proceeding, or what would be said in the Chinese Appeal Judgment: see Self Care No 12.
It does not follow from the fact that in late November 2022, case file materials relating to Mr Emilio Wang’s indictment were in Mr Plane’s possession in his role as Self Care’s IP attorney in Hong Kong instructing in the Chinese criminal proceedings that it would be anything other than wildly speculative for Self Care:
(a)first, to posit when those materials could be disclosed to Self Care and its Australian lawyers for review for possible use in this proceeding – that is, at least when the Chinese Appeal Proceeding might be heard and determined, and
(b)secondly, to posit whether any document or documents, and if so what, existed within those materials that reasonably could be considered relevant to Self Care’s claims in this proceeding, admissible and probative;
(c)thirdly, given those speculations, to approach the Court during oral closing submissions in the week commencing 28 November 2022, or shortly before, to seek an adjournment of the hearing for an indeterminate time, on the possibility that some unknown new item or items of evidence might at some unknown future date be available to Self Care to tender in its case.
In my view, to apply for and pursue an adjournment application in those circumstances would not be in accordance with the overarching purpose obligations set out in ss 190 and 191 of the FCFCOA Act.
Further, I am satisfied on the evidence that each of Ms Lingling Chen and Mr Plane reasonably believed that they would be acting contrary to their legal and ethical obligations as Chinese legal representative of Self Care as the victim entity in the Chinese Appeal Proceeding and instructor respectively if prior to the publication of the Chinese Appeal Judgment they disclosed the Chinese Proceedings Documents to Self Care and its Australian lawyers for Self Care to use in this proceeding. Accordingly, I am satisfied that Self Care have acted in a way that is consistent with the overarching purpose. This is a factor I have had regard to in concluding that I am satisfied by the explanation proffered by Self Care for not adducing the evidence at hearing.
Yang/Wang parties other submissions
Further to his submissions on and relating to Chinese law, and Self Care’s evidence and availability of witnesses in China addressed above, Mr Li also sought to argue that the documents may be fabricated, and that Self Care has failed to establish their authenticity. These submissions are without merit, and must be rejected.
At the heel of the hearing on day 4, after two sets of written submissions, and after concluding his oral submissions, Mr Li tendered a document purporting to be a NAATI qualified translation of a red watermark with Chinese text from a page of one of the China Indictment Documents. Notwithstanding the lack of explanation for the late tender, that the document was not put to any witness, and my view that Mr Li was not acting according to his obligations pursuant to ss 190 and 191 of the FCFCOA Act, I admitted the document, subject to weight.
So translated, the red watermark states:
This material is for reference only and may not be reproduced, disclosed or published without permission.
Special Seal for Archive Materials of Shanghai People’s Courts at All Levels.
The red watermark does not advance the Yang/Wang parties’ position. The red watermark is consistent with, and addressed by Ms Lingling Chen’s evidence that she obtained permission from Judge Cheng Tingting on the Appeal Court, for Self Care to disclose and use the case materials, and thus, relevantly, the China Indictment Documents.
Conclusion on timeliness and adequacy of explanation
Accordingly, for the above reasons I am satisfied that Self Care could not with reasonable diligence have foreshadowed the present Application earlier than they did, and has not delayed in notifying the participating respondents of the China Indictment Documents and the Chinese Appeal Judgment, and Self Care’s intention to bring this Application.
PREJUDICE TO THE PARTIES
As I have set out above, a relevant consideration is the degree of prejudice that the respondents to the application to reopen a case would suffer should the application be allowed. I consider that the prejudice must be more than hypothetical; it must be real, material and relevant, genuine, and not merely performative.
None of the respondents opposing the Application led any evidence that they would have made different forensic decisions had the Documents been available before they closed their case. No party has identified that the Documents raise any new issues, or will lead to further applications to reopen and lead further evidence in response.
Mr Parish submits that the strain of prolonged litigation on individual litigants is a relevant factor to be considered. I accept that the strain of litigation is a real, and considerable concern for litigants. In the present case, however, I consider that the fact of the Application has not substantially increased the time to judgment.
The Green Forest parties submit it is not possible to prognosticate what different course might have been taken by them if the Documents had been led at hearing. Mr Parish submits that the question for the Court is ‘not what they would have done, but what they could have done’. The Green Forest parties do not articulate what any one or more of those possibilities could be. They do not identify any specific, relevant prejudice arising from the China Indictment Documents, or any of them.
I do not consider that a claim of impossibility of prognostication equates to prejudice. I do not propose to speculate on the hypothetical and phantasmagorical.
Upon Ms Lingling Chen being available for cross‑examination, the only matter raised by way of prejudice by Mr Skelin was not pursued, Mr Le Plastrier, counsel for Mr Skelin, acknowledging that the submission lost it potency, and he does not press it.
The Yang/Wang parties do not articulate any prejudice, save relevance, as against them.
Under Self Care’s proposed orders, each party has the opportunity to make submissions in relation to each of the Documents.
I am satisfied on the evidence before me that the Documents are confirmatory of Self Care’s case, do not raise new issues, or lead to further rounds of evidence. I consider that admission of the Documents has the possibility at least of assisting the Court in its deliberations.
For the above reasons, I consider that the admission of the Documents will occasion no relevant prejudice to the respondents.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DOCUMENTS AND ADMISSIBILITY
On 14 June 2023, Self Care served on the respondents the Application, supporting affidavits and copies of the Documents it seeks leave to reopen and adduce into evidence in Chinese and in translation. In the accompanying letter dated 14 June 2023 and schedule then served, inter alia, Self Care identified each of the Documents, and the grounds on which Self Care seeks to have them admitted into evidence pursuant to the Application, and invited the respondents to indicate their position.
At [3]-[4] I briefly referred to the positions taken by the respondents participating on the Application. As I there stated, should leave be granted, AVP consents to the Documents being admitted.
The positions of the Green Forest parties and Mr Skelin on the admission of the Documents evolved somewhat during the hearing. The Yang/Wang parties prolonged the hearing of the Application, but added little of substance to their opposition.
The Chinese Appeal Judgment
Self Care proposes that the Chinese Appeal Judgment be admitted into evidence on a corresponding basis on which the Chinese Judgment was admitted into evidence in Self Care No 12.
Proposed limitations pursuant to s 136 of the Evidence Act
Self Care proposes five limited purposes under s 136 of the Evidence Act for which it seeks admission into evidence of the Chinese Appeal Judgment, as follows (without alteration):
1.The fact of the Chinese Appeal Judgment.
2. The Chinese Appeal Judgment identifies that Mr Emilio Wang’s appeal from his conviction at first instance by the Shanghai Court of the crime of counterfeiting Self Care’s registered freezeframe trade marks in China (with a fixed term of imprisonment imposed of three years and six months and a fine of RMB1.75 million) was dismissed, and his conviction, sentence and fine were upheld.
3. No issue estoppel arises in relation to matters alleged in this proceeding from the Chinese Appeal Judgment.
4. No damages were recovered or are recoverable by the Applicants in the proceeding the subject of the Chinese Appeal Judgment. In the event that the Applicants obtain any recovery, they will inform the Court and the represented parties.
5. The Chinese Appeal Judgment refers to the following documents before that Court that ought to be in the possession of Skelin, but were not produced or adduced by him in this proceeding:
a. Chat history between Emilio Wang and Shigao Pan [Skelin] which shows that Emilio Wang and Skelin have jointly established many companies over the years, and they have applied to the Applicants for the distribution rights of “freezeframe” brand products in the name of the company they jointly established (page 8 of the Chinese Appeal Judgment).
b. The trademark registration certificate, letter of authorisation and formula table of the product provided to Weiwei Lin, manager of Yangfeng, at a meeting in February 2019 attended by Emilio Wang, Skelin and Weiwei Lin (page 9 of Chinese Appeal Judgment).
c. The “purchase agreements, bank transfer statements, WeChat chat history” (page 10 of the Chinese Appeal Judgment).
So limited, the Green Forest parties and AVP consent. The Yang/Wang parties do not meaningfully address the Chinese Appeal Judgment.

Mr Skelin accepts that the Chinese Appeal Judgment is admissible for the purposes identified by Self Care in items 1, 2, 3 and 4 above, and consents to leave being granted to Self Care to reopen their case to tender the Chinese Appeal Judgment for those limited purposes.
As to item 5, in written, and subsequently oral, submissions Self Care pressed item 5(a) against Mr Skelin, and not (b) or (c).
Mr Le Plastrier identifies that in item 5, by the chapeau, Self Care asserts that the Chinese Appeal Judgment refers to a chat history between Mr Emilio Wang and Mr Skelin, (then described in sub‑paragraph (a)), “that ought to be in the possession of [Mr] Skelin, but were not produced or adduced by him in this proceeding”. He submits that leave should be refused to reopen to admit the Chinese Appeal Judgment for the purpose in item 5(a), because:
(a)this would be a circumvention of the Court’s processes for pursuing such allegations, as set out in Brookfield v Yevad Products Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 1376 (Mansfield J) at [21], and see also Procter v Kalivis [2009] FCA 1518, Besanko J at [29]‑[34];
(b)in any event, in order for such a finding to be made Self Care would have to establish that Mr Skelin had particular documents in his possession or control at the time he was ordered to give discovery, or served a relevant notice to produce;
(c)none of the relevant passages of the judgment establish this, or in many cases that Mr Skelin ever possessed any relevant document. The Chinese Appeal Judgment is therefore not relevant for the item 5(a) purpose;
(d)the hearing having concluded, if admitted for the item 5(a) purpose, the Chinese Appeal Judgment would not be so material that the interests of judgment requires its admission. Even if the Chinese Appeal Judgment showed that Mr Skelin breached an order for discovery, or notice to produce (which counsel submits it does not), such a finding would not be material to any fact in issue. Mr Skelin did not give evidence, so no issue of credit arises.
On this Application, Mr Le Plastrier emphasises two dates on which document production and verification orders relevant to Mr Skelin were made in the proceeding: 25 October 2019, the date of the first order in the proceeding, then requiring Mr Skelin to make a Norwich Pharmacal affidavit, and 16 July 2022, the date of the most recent order that he put on an affidavit explaining what was said to be an inadequacy in discovery.
Brookfield, and the above identified passages in Procter v Kalivis, set out the limited grounds on which affidavits of discovery may be challenged. In Self Care No 9 I noted counsel’s reliance on Brookfield in the context of an application for orders for further production and further search of certain devices of Mr Skelin. It is unnecessary here to restate the factual matters then in issue, the earlier or subsequent history of this proceeding, or various discovery and similar applications.
In oral submissions in reply Mr Hennessy SC clarified that Self Care does not ask the Court to admit the Chinese Appeal Judgment with the words in the chapeau to item 5 identified above. They comprise a statement of fact: that the documents listed in item 5 were not produced by Mr Skelin in the proceeding, and so were not available to be led at the hearing; and foreshadow a submission: Self Care will submit that they ought to have been produced.
As I canvassed in the hearing of the Application, I consider that excising the above words from the chapeau to the item 5 purpose is appropriate. It addresses Mr Le Plastrier’s circumvention of process points. For the reasons that follow, Mr Le Plastrier’s submission that the Chinese Judgment does not refer to any document as ever being in Mr Skelin’s possession or custody is rejected. As I identify below, I am satisfied that the judgment does identify that at least the WeChat history between Mr Skelin and Mr Emilio Wang would have been in his possession on the dates of the chat. Further, it identifies that according to the testimony of Ms Weiwei Lin she received documents from him in February 2019, noting that reference is not pressed against Mr Skelin.
Consideration - Chinese Appeal Judgment
On considering the Chinese Appeal Judgment, for the following reasons I am satisfied that each of the documents listed in purpose item 5 are disclosed on the face of the judgment as being before that Court, referred to by it and having the content set out in items 5 (a), (b) and (c).
First, at internal page 2, the Appeal Court summarises in general terms the evidence that it is appraised was before the court at first instance and on which that court made its findings, and convicted, sentenced and fined Mr Emilio Wang:
According to the list of evidence collection, search transcripts, the written decision on impoundment, the list of impoundment, the list of evidence collection, statements, company registration certificate, proof of trademark registration, trademark registration certificate, power of attorney, public notary reports, statement of non‑authorisation, explanatory note, identification report, proof of price, forensic identification report, purchase agreements, bank transfer statements, WeChat chat history, Alipay transfer history, supply contracts, purchase orders, electronic bank statements, value-added tax invoices, employment statement, and the testimony of witnesses Wenjian Zhang, Yutian Shi, Weiwei Lin, Dingqing Yang, Zhiang Liao, Lin Li and Kefei (Ivan) Wang, the court of first instance found that: …
Secondly, at internal page 6, the Appeal Court states that the evidence before it is the same as that before the first instance court, and on the second instance trial it makes the same findings of facts:
The facts of the crime are clear. It constitutes the crime of counterfeiting a registered trademark according to the law.
The finding of facts and the evidence of second instance trial are the same as those at first instance trial.
Thirdly, at internal page 6, immediately following the above, the Appeal Court, states that it has investigated the facts and evidence and that its comprehensive evaluation – its decision – follows:
According to the facts and evidence that have been investigated, the court’s comprehensive evaluation of the opinions of all parties is as follows:
Fourthly, concerning Self Care’s proposed item 5(a), at internal page 8, the Appeal Court supports its findings there set out on evidence of the ‘WeChat chat history’ it had earlier identified at page 2, and at page 6 stated that it had before it at second instance, investigated and found (emphasis added identifying the reference to the document corresponding to (a)):
Secondly, in Kefei (Emilio) Wang’s subjective mind, he knew that the “freezeframe” eye cream products he entrusted Yang Feng Company to produce was unauthorised. Kefei (Emilio) Wang argued that he thought Shigao Pan was the Chairman of Self Care Corporation. According to the investigation, the chat history between Kefei (Emilio) Wang and Shigao Pan shows that Kefei (Emilio) Wang and Shigao Pan have jointly established many companies over the years, and they have applied to the victim entity for the distribution rights of “freezeframe” brand products in the name of the company they jointly established. The testimony of witnesses Xujing Tao and Kefei (Ivan) Wang also substantiates that Kefei (Emilio) Wang, as the responsible person of the EPAQ company, has entrusted them with promoting “freezeframe” brand products. At that time, Shigao Pan has also participated in the negotiation as a decision maker of EPAQ. Therefore, Kefei (Emilio) Wang’s argument that he thought Shigao Pan was the Chairman of Self Care Corporation is inconsistent with the finding of facts, and is not accepted by the court.
Fifthly, concerning Self Care’s proposed item 5(b), at internal page 9, the Appeal Court refers to a letter of authorisation, the forensic identification evidence and the Court’s evaluation of the letter as a forgery, and lastly finds that Emilio Wang committed the act of entrusting others to produce goods with counterfeit registered trademarks (sic), and supports its findings there set out on evidence of the testimony of witness Weiwei Lin and the trademark registration certificate it earlier identified (at page 2), stated that it had before it at second instance, investigated and found (page 6), the letter of authorisation, and also formula table of the product which it then identifies at internal page 10 as being evidence before it (emphasis added identifying the reference corresponding to (b)):
According to the investigation, the testimony of witness Weiwei Lin substantiates that Weiwei Lin was a manager of Yangfeng. In February 2019, Kefei (Emilio) Wang brought a foreigner whose surname is Pan to discuss with Weiwei Lin regarding manufacturing the “freezeframe” brand eye creams on their behalf. He claimed himself to be the brand’s General Manager of the Asia-Pacific region and provided corresponding trademark registration certificate and letter of authorisation. The formula table of the product was provided by Kefei (Emilio) Wang.
Sixthly, further identifying the evidence that supported Weiwei Lin’s testimony (above), and concerning proposed item 5 (c), at internal page 10, the Appeal Court states (emphasis added identifying the reference corresponding to (c)):
The testimony of witness Weiwei Lin is also supported by evidence such as the purchase agreements, bank transfer statements, WeChat chat history, etc, which prove that in the process of producing counterfeit “freezeframe” brand eye creams, Kefei (Emilio) Wang sent Weiwei Lin product formula and had repeated discussions with Weiwei Lin via WeChat on the colour of the paste, the scent, the packaging, the manual and made improvements accordingly.
Seventhly, at internal page 10, the Appeal Court states:
In summary, the above‑mentioned evidence forms a chain [of evidence], which is sufficient to prove that in Kefei (Emilio) Wang’s subjective mind, … and by objective conduct …
And, concludes,
… The finding of facts in the first instance judgement (sic) was clear, the evidence was credible and sufficient, the conviction was accurate, the sentencing was appropriate, and the trial procedure is in accordance with the law.
Thus, from page 1 through to the end of page 5 in the Chinese Appeal Judgment, the Appeal Court identifies the participants and their counsel and legal representatives, summarises the history of the proceeding, identifies the evidence before the first instance court, summarises its findings and determination, and summarises the arguments and submissions made to the Appeal Court by each of the participants. Following the summation of evidence and facts, findings before it and that it makes its decision at page 6, from page 6 through to page 10 the Appeal Court then sets out its comprehensive evaluation, identifying relevant evidence on which it relies in reaching its decision. Relevantly, at pages 8, 9 and 10, the Appeal Court refers to evidence it had identified in summary form at page 2 was before the first instance court, and at page 6, also before it, and considered by it – ‘investigated’ in the language of the judgment. Lastly, in its summary concluding the judgment, the Appeal Court confirms that the evidence it had mentioned above, and on which it reaches its conclusions was before it, and was credible and sufficient.
I consider that the matters referred to in item 5(a) are relevant to Self Care’s case. Contrary to Mr Le Plastrier’s submission, I do not consider that they are relevant only to a submission about the inadequacy of Mr Skelin’s verifying affidavit, nor to the bald fact that Mr Emilio Wang and Mr Skelin engaged in WeChat communications. I consider the reference is of broader relevance to the issues of Mr Skelin’s knowledge of, and joint participation with, Mr Emilio Wang in the activities and enterprise alleged by Self Care in the proceeding.
Conclusion on the Chinese Appeal Judgment
For the above reasons, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to admit into evidence the Chinese Appeal Judgment in Self Care’s case in this proceeding:
(a)against all the respondents except Mr Skelin, subject to the limitations under s 136 of the Evidence Act numbered 1, 2, 3, 4 as set out at [123] above, and limitation numbered 5 (a) – (c) there set out with the variation to the chapeau I have stated at [131]; and
(b)against Mr Skelin, subject to the limitations under s 136 of the Evidence Act numbered 1, 2, 3, 4 as set out at [123] above, and limitation numbered 5 (a) there set out with the variation to the chapeau I have stated at [131].
The China Indictment Documents
I have identified the China Indictment Documents above at [11]. Each of the China Indictment Documents before the Court comprises a copy of the Chinese document in the form obtained by Mr Plane and provided to Gilbert + Tobin as I have described, and its corresponding English translation prepared by Ms Chiu and Ms Guo.
Positions of the opposing respondents about the China Indictment Documents
The Green Forest parties consent to admission into evidence of the signed Yangfeng agreement, and the unsigned further Yangfeng agreement, and maintain their opposition to the other China Indictment Documents.
In addition to Mr Parish’s submissions on the law of the forum addressed above, the Green Forest parties submit that the utility of those documents is not explained to the standard required on reopening. There must be a precise and substantive identification of how each document is so material that the interests of justice require its admission, and if accepted that each would most probably affect the result of the case (noting the caveat I have expressed on the breadth of that factor).
Mr Skelin submits that the China Indictment Documents are irrelevant for the purposes of demonstrating that Mr Skelin had not complied with his discovery obligations. In oral submissions Mr Le Plastrier acknowledged, however, that the documents otherwise meet the requirements set out in Ex parte Ferguson of such materiality that the interests of justice require admission; the evidence if believed would most probably affect the result.
The Yang/Wang parties oppose admission of the China Indictment Documents. Mr Li references the Hague Convention on the taking of evidence abroad in civil or commercial matters in support of his submission that Mr Plane’s concerns for Chinese witnesses giving evidence in foreign proceedings were baseless and wrong, and that the Court should draw unfavourable inferences of his evidence on information and belief from Ms Lingling Chen, notwithstanding s 75 of the Evidence Act. Given that Ms Lingling Chen gave evidence and was cross‑examined, these submissions are irrelevant.
Mr Li also submitted that of the package of documents produced by Self Care (presumably the China Indictment Documents), there is ‘not a single document that is related to the [Yang/Wang parties]’, and ‘the lack of evidence about [them] implies that they are not involved in [their son Emilio Wang’s] Self Care business at all’. As Mr Li states, the Yang/Wang parties make this submission if the documents are admitted into evidence. I note it accordingly.
Discussion and consideration – China Indictment Documents
As I expand upon in the following paragraphs, further to my review of the China Indictment Documents – looking at both the Chinese text and images, including the profile pictures and user identifiers, and English translations - I consider that each of the China Indictment Documents are highly relevant, and comprise probative evidence on key issues in dispute in the proceeding. I am satisfied that they each meet the requirements of materiality on reopening to be admitted into evidence.
Document (1) - signed Yangfeng agreement
This document is a signed, dated (2019.3.6) and sealed copy of the unsigned purchase agreement in evidence in this proceeding purporting to be made between ‘Selfcare Corporation Pty Ltd’ and Yangfeng for the manufacture of 100,000 units of ‘freezeframe REVITALEYES’ in China with batch code 071814RE. The unsigned document is part of Exhibit MJW‑45, and also formed part of the ‘Further Skelin Results’, as deposed in Mr Williams’ earlier affidavit sworn on 23 March 2022 (Williams #35, relevant paragraphs read on day 32 at hearing, and exhibits tendered).
Both this signed document and the unsigned purchase agreement have a time of delivery stated as ‘Out of the warehouse by 10 May 2019’. The signed document is annotated with the statement handwritten in Chinese characters and translated as ‘This is the 100,000 units of freezeframe eye cream that I signed with Kefei (Emilio) Wang in March. Wei Wei Lin 2021/6/23’.
Document (2) - unsigned further Yangfeng agreement
This document has the same format and layout as the signed Yangfeng agreement. This document is a draft agreement purporting to be between ‘Selfcare Corporation Pty Ltd’ and Yangfeng for a further order of 50,000 units of ‘freezeframe REVITALEYES’ from Yangfeng, also with batch code 071814RE. It is signed, dated (2019.7.3) and sealed by Yangfeng as ‘Party B’, with the same seal of Yangfeng as the above document, but it is not signed, sealed or dated by ‘Party A: Self Care Corporation Pty Ltd’.
This document has a time of delivery stated as ‘Out of the warehouse by 28 July 2019’.
Self Care submits, and I am satisfied on my review, that these two documents are highly relevant to Self Care’s allegation that counterfeit freezeframe Products were manufactured in China by, or on behalf of, Mr Skelin and Mr Emilio Wang or their corporate and individual associates. This is one of the central allegations made in the proceeding.
Document (3) - Emilio and WeiWei WeChat messages
The Emilio and WeiWei WeChat messages are a number of WeChat message chains between Mr Emilio (Wang) and Ms Weiwei Lin of Yangfeng. They evidence arrangements regarding the manufacture in China of products purporting to be ‘freezeframe REVITALEYES’. The WeChats show discussions between those two persons about getting the product and the packaging as close as possible in appearance and formulation to Self Care’s product, comparing, revising and improving the Chinese manufactured products, of purchase orders, production, units, pricing and transfer of money in payment, and delivery. They include purchase orders, photographs and other visual images of and comparing packaging, and product, and a carton containing multiple units of packaged product.
I consider that the documents are very illuminating on the key issues concerning counterfeit product in dispute in the proceeding.
Document (4) - Emilio and Skelin WeChat messages
The Emilio and Skelin WeChat messages comprise text communications passing between those 2 respondents in a 10-day period in October 2019. They include a quote for the production of “eye cream boxes”. On my perusal relevant matters discussed in the messages include getting rid of thousands of units of product “ASAP”, getting funds “into the account”, sales price points, unflattering views about Ms Amoroso, and the state of Self Care’s business and brand. Messages include “will they believe the stock is real?”, “Regarding FF stock back to AU”, “We need to ask if we can have Selfcare as the consignor and Europe dairy as the consignee”, “If this can be done then we aren’t on the paperwork”, “Or Alves as the consignor” and “I can use Ivan’s Quanjian Pty Ltd”, “He put his “friend” as director”, “Nothing to link to us”, and “solved”.
Self Care submits, further to Mr Williams’ evidence, and from my perusal of the documents, I am satisfied that the WeChat messages between Mr Emilio Wang and Mr Skelin are relevant, and comprise probative evidence on a number of key issues in dispute including:
(a)whether Mr Emilio Wang and Mr Skelin jointly operated a business distributing counterfeit freezeframe-branded products;
(b)whether Mr Emilio Wang and Mr Skelin's agents, including Mr Ivan Wang and Liao (Sean) Zhiang, were involved in the sale of counterfeits;
(c)whether Mr Emilio Wang and Mr Skelin knew that products they were distributing via Mr Ivan Wang and Mr Zhiang were counterfeit;
(d)whether Mr Emilio Wang and Mr Skelin took steps to conceal the sale of counterfeits by their business, including using the names ‘Self Care’, ‘Europe dairy’, ‘Alves’ and ‘Quanjian’ on shipping documents for that purpose;
(e)whether Mr Emilio Wang and Mr Skelin were aware of the damage that their activities caused or could cause to Self Care, and
(f)whether the director of Quanjian was changed to conceal the link between the company and Mr Emilio Wang, Mr Skelin and Mr Ivan Wang.

It is not necessary that I reach a concluded view whether the communications constitute admissions as submitted by Self Care. It suffices that I am satisfied that the Emilio and Skelin WeChat messages are relevant, have probative value and are material to the above issues, which are among the key issues in dispute in the proceeding.
Document (5) - Emilio and Ivan WeChat messages
The Emilio and Ivan WeChat messages comprise 4 pages in Chinese. The first page is a November 2019 date, after the proceeding commenced with the grant of ex parte injunctions, restraining orders, orders for Norwich Pharmacal affidavits and production of devices for forensic imaging. The remaining 3 pages are WeChats in May 2020, after Mr Emilio Wang appeared in Court in Sydney (in February 2020), travelled to China and ceased participating in the proceeding. The messages record sale by Mr Emilio Wang in November 2019 of Hong Kong stock of products to Mr Ivan Wang as a ‘Clearance sale’ for very low prices, an FF (freezeframe) supply chain provided by Mr Emilio Wang to Mr Ivan Wang, a warehouse receipt and pickup list from Mr Emilio Wang’s warehouse in Hong Kong, and Mr Ivan Wang’s proof of purchase regarding itemised products from Mr Emilio Wang. There is reference in the FF supply chain to a location described as “Pascal’s warehouse in Sydney”.
I am satisfied that these WeChat messages are relevant, and have probative value and are material to key issues in the proceeding concerning and arising from the alleged business relationship between Mr Emilio Wang and Mr Ivan Wang, and their roles in the sale (including pricing) and distribution of product, including counterfeit product, into Australia in late 2019 and 2020.
Document (6) - ‘Authorisation’ Letter
This document purports to be an authorisation letter in the name of Self Care to Yangfeng to produce freezeframe products. It appears to be the document referred to by Ms Weiwei Lin in a WeChat conversation with Mr Emilio Wang recorded in the Emilio and Weiwei WeChat messages. Self Care contends that this is a fake authorisation. Ms Amoroso has given evidence at hearing about Self Care’s authorisation of production and manufacture of freezeframe products and its limits.
I am satisfied that the purported ‘Authorisation’ Letter is relevant, and material to the issues of manufacture of counterfeit product under the freezeframe trade mark in China, and thus to the above issues identified in relation to the WeChat messages documents.
Conclusion on significance of the China Indictment Documents and their admission
In sum, I am satisfied from my perusal of the China Indictment Documents that they each relate to key matters in dispute in the proceeding, variously:
(a)the manufacture of counterfeit freezeframe REVITALEYES by or on behalf of Mr Emilio Wang and Mr Skelin and their corporate and individual associates;
(b)the business relationship alleged between Mr Emilio Wang and Mr Skelin, and with Mr Ivan Wang;
(c)the concealment by Mr Emilio Wang and Mr Skelin of the manufacture of counterfeit freezeframe products; and
(d)the role of Mr Ivan Wang in the sale and distribution of counterfeit freezeframe products into and in Australia,
that each of the documents is highly relevant, probative, and that the Court is more able to do justice on the facts and circumstances of the case by admitting the documents.
Grounds of admissibility of the China Indictment Documents
Self Care propounds several evidentiary bases on which each of the China Indictment Documents is admissible into evidence in the proceeding as exceptions under the Evidence Act to the hearsay rule, which evidentiary bases they communicated to the respondents in the schedule to their letter dated 14 June 2023.
In relation to the China Indictment Documents (1), (2) and (6) – the signed Yangfeng agreement, the unsigned further Yangfeng agreement and the ‘Authorisation’ Letter – Self Care submits each of the documents is admissible under one or other of the following provisions of the Evidence Act:
(a)s 63 – the makers of the representations in the document, Mr Emilio Wang and Ms WeiWei Lin, are unavailable in circumstances where they are in China and, in the case of Mr Emilio Wang, he is also in prison;
(b)s 64 – if a maker of the document is available, it would cause undue expense or undue delay, or would not be reasonably practicable, to call the person who made the representation to give evidence because they are in China and, in the case of Mr Emilio Wang, he is also in prison;
(c)s 69 – the document is a business record; or
(d)s 81 – the document contains evidence of admissions.
In relation to China Indictment Documents (3), and (5) - the Emilio and WeiWei WeChat messages, and the Emilio and Ivan WeChat messages - Self Care submits each of the documents is admissible under one or other of the following provisions of the Evidence Act:
(a)s 63 – makers of representations in the document, Mr Emilio Wang and Ms WeiWei Lin, and Mr Emilio Wang and Mr Ivan Wang respectively, are unavailable in circumstances where each of them is in China, and Mr Emilio Wang is also in prison;
(b)s 64 – if a maker of the document is available, it would cause undue expense or undue delay, or would not be reasonably practicable, to call them to give evidence because each of them is in China and Mr Emilio Wang is also in prison;
(c)s 69 – the document is a business record;
(d)s 81 – the document contains evidence of admissions; or
(e)s 71 – the document contains electronic communications such that the identity of the persons who sent the communications, the date and time the communications were sent and the person who the communications were sent to are admissible.
In relation to China Indictment Document (4) - Emilio and Skelin WeChat messages - Self Care submits the document is admissible under one or other of the following provisions of the Evidence Act:
(a)s 63 – a maker of representations in the document, Mr Emilio Wang, is unavailable in circumstances where he is in prison in China;
(b)s 64 – if Mr Emilio Wang is available, it would cause undue expense or undue delay, or would not be reasonably practicable, to call him to give evidence because he is in prison in China;
(c)s 69 – the document is a business record;
(d)s 81 – the document contains evidence of admissions; or
(e)s 71 – the document contains electronic communications such that the identity of the persons who sent the communications, the date and time the communications were sent and the person who the communications were sent to are admissible.
No respondent made any submissions directed against these evidentiary bases for admissibility. I have considered each of them. Although I am doubtful that s 63 of the Evidence Act applies given the extremely limited meaning of unavailable in the Dictionary to the Act, I consider that the other provisions of the Evidence Act identified apply and the documents are admissible on the other bases submitted in respect of the respective China Indictment Document, and in the case of s 64(2), that the provisions of s 67 have substantially been complied with, and to the extent that they have not been, I have taken into account the matters set out in s 192(2) of the Evidence Act.
Further to that consideration, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to grant Self Care leave to reopen to tender the China Indictment Documents, and to admit each of the China Indictment Documents into evidence in the hearing of the proceeding.
DISPOSITION
For the above reasons, I have concluded that the applicants should be granted leave to reopen to tender the Documents, and that the Documents should be admitted into evidence in the proceeding.
As I have adverted to above, each of Self Care and the respondents will have the opportunity to make submissions in relation to the Documents, supplementing their closing submissions in the proceeding, within the times foreshadowed in the Application. Several parties have indicated they may wish to make submissions on costs. I will hear the parties on costs as soon as practicable.
I so order.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and seventy-three (173) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Baird.
Associate:
Dated: 10 October 2023

SYG 2771 of 2019

Applicants

First Applicant:

SELF CARE CORPORATION PTY LTD

Second Respondent:

SELF CARE IP HOLDINGS PTY LTD

Respondents

First Respondent:

GREEN FOREST INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD

Second Respondent:

YAOAN (ERIC) CHEN

Third Respondent:

YILIN TRADING PTY LTD

Fourth Respondent:

FREEZEFRAME CHINA CO PTY LTD

Fifth Respondent:

KEFEI (EMILIO) WANG

Sixth Respondent:

PASCAL SKELIN

Seventh Respondent:

EPAQ INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD

Eighth Respondent:

QUANJIAN PTY LTD

Ninth Respondent:

YIPING YANG

Tenth Respondent:

TAOYU PAN

Eleventh Respondent:

KEFEI (IVAN) WANG

Twelfth Respondent:

ZUREN INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD

Thirteenth Respondent:

SIQI HUO

Fourteenth Respondent:

MR YULIN WANG

Fifteenth Respondent:

E-GO CHANNEL PTY LTD

Sixteenth Respondent:

AUSTRALIAN VITAMIN PLUS PTY LTD

Seventeenth Respondent:

YAN (CYNTHIA) LI

SCHEDULE OF PARTIES

File number(s):	SYG 2771 of 2019
Judgment of:	JUDGE BAIRD
Date of judgment:	10 October 2023
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to re‑open – judgment reserved – where applicants seek leave to re‑open to tender seven documents – application opposed – whether documents reasonably available earlier – Chinese criminal proceedings now concluded – foreign law – Chinese law proved – interests of justice – timeliness of production – significance of documents – any prejudice – each considered – application allowed – foreign judgment admitted for limited purposes pursuant to s 136 Evidence Act – documents admitted – exceptions to hearsay rule
Legislation:	Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), ss 63, 64, 67, 69, 71, 75, 81, 136, 192 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act2021 (Cth), ss 190, 191 Evidence Regulations 1995 (Cth), reg 6 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), r 20.03
Cases cited:	Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union (WA Branch); Ex parte Ferguson (1986) 67 ALR 491 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Rich [2006] NSWSC 826; (2006) 235 ALR 587 Brookfield v Yevad Products Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 1376 Harman v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1983] 1 AC 280 Hearnev Street [2008] HCA 36; (2008) 235 CLR 125 MF Lady Pty Ltd v Henry Morgan Ltd [2022] FCA 978 Neilson v Overseas Projects Corporations of Victoria Ltd & Anor (2005) 223 CLR 331 Procter v Kalivis [2009] FCA 1518; (2009) 263 ALR 461 Quinn & Lawson [2023] FedCFamC1F 164 Reid v Brett [2005] VSC 18 Self Care Corporation Pty Ltd v Green Forest International Pty Ltd (No 9) [2021] FCCA 1866 Self Care Corporation Pty Ltd v Green Forest International Pty Ltd(No 11) [2022] FedCFamC2G 257 Self Care Corporation Pty Ltd v Green Forest International Pty Ltd (No 12) [2022] FedCFamC2G 1030 Spotlight Pty Ltd v NCON Australia Ltd [2012] VSCA 232; (2012) 46 VR 1 Telstra Corporation Ltd v Australian Competition & Consumer Commission [2008] FCA 1436; (2008) 171 FCR 174; Top Plus Pty Ltd v Yi Star Pty Ltd [2023] FedCFamC2G 189
Division:	Division 2 General Federal Law
Number of paragraphs:	173
Dates of hearing:	5, 6, 11 & 13 September 2023
Counsel for the Applicants:	Mr J Hennessy SC with Mr C McMeniman
Solicitor for the Applicants:	Gilbert + Tobin
Counsel for the First, Second, Fifteenth and Seventeenth Respondents:	Mr D Parish
Solicitor for the First, Second, Fifteenth and Seventeenth Respondents:	H + H Lawyers
Counsel for the Sixth Respondent:	Mr B Le Plastrier with Mr R Sud
Solicitor for the Sixth Respondent:	Gear and Co Lawyers
Solicitor for the Ninth and Fourteenth Respondents:	Mr S Li, Viska Lawyers and Advisors
Counsel for the Sixteenth Respondent:	Mr A Di Francesco
Solicitor for the Sixteenth Respondent:	HWL Ebsworth

SYG 2771 of 2019
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	SELF CARE CORPORATION PTY LTD First Applicant SELF CARE IP HOLDINGS PTY LTD Second Applicant
AND:	GREEN FOREST INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD First Respondent (and others named in the Schedule)

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE BAIRD
DATE OF ORDER:	10 OCTOBER 2023

SYG 2771 of 2019
Applicants
First Applicant:	SELF CARE CORPORATION PTY LTD
Second Respondent:	SELF CARE IP HOLDINGS PTY LTD
Respondents
First Respondent:	GREEN FOREST INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD
Second Respondent:	YAOAN (ERIC) CHEN
Third Respondent:	YILIN TRADING PTY LTD
Fourth Respondent:	FREEZEFRAME CHINA CO PTY LTD
Fifth Respondent:	KEFEI (EMILIO) WANG
Sixth Respondent:	PASCAL SKELIN
Seventh Respondent:	EPAQ INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD
Eighth Respondent:	QUANJIAN PTY LTD
Ninth Respondent:	YIPING YANG
Tenth Respondent:	TAOYU PAN
Eleventh Respondent:	KEFEI (IVAN) WANG
Twelfth Respondent:	ZUREN INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD
Thirteenth Respondent:	SIQI HUO
Fourteenth Respondent:	MR YULIN WANG
Fifteenth Respondent:	E-GO CHANNEL PTY LTD
Sixteenth Respondent:	AUSTRALIAN VITAMIN PLUS PTY LTD
Seventeenth Respondent:	YAN (CYNTHIA) LI