JUDGE:	Barrett AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	16, 17, 18 September 2024 and 8, 11 and 21 November 2024; written closing submissions filed by the defendant on 7 January 2025 and by the plaintiff on 4 March 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	26 August 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Wang & Ors v Duan
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 516

---

FOREIGN JUDGMENTS – Plaintiffs obtained judgments from Chinese Courts against defendant after service by public announcement – Plaintiffs not aware of, or personally served with process in, Chinese proceeding – Plaintiffs knew defendant’s email and WeChat addresses – Notice of proceedings not communicated to defendant by email or WeChat - Yin v Wu (2023) 73 VR 21 considered and applied – Defendant prima facie denied natural justice – Whether defendant served in accordance with Chinese Law – Whether defendant served in accordance with contractual provision for service – Whether principles of comity require recognition of Chinese Judgments – Held: Principles of comity give way to fundamental principles of justice, which includes natural justice – Applied Yin v Wu, Court should look unfavourably on failure to notify or serve defendant by available electronic means – Defendant was denied natural justice – Registration of foreign judgments refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr D Stamboulakis of counsel	HWL Ebsworth Lawyers
For the Defendant	Mr J D McKay of counsel with Mr O Lloyd of counsel	Boon Legal

Contents

Introduction

The evidence

Background

The parties and their connection
Mr Wang’s knowledge of Mr Duan’s location and contact details
Mr Wang’s knowledge of Mr Duan’s Hawthorn address
The Chinese Proceedings
Kunzhou Proceeding
Longshi Proceeding
Wang Proceeding

Applications for retrial

Was process served in accordance with Chinese law?

What is the Chinese law regarding service?
What was Mr Duan’s domicile?
Did Mr Wang comply with obligations of good faith in communicating with the Chinese Courts about Mr Duan’s whereabouts and contact details?
Did the Chinese Courts apply the law in effecting service by public announcement?

Legislation and Principles

Consideration

Did Mr Duan have actual notice of the Chinese Proceedings?
Would service by electronic means have brought the Chinese Proceedings to Mr Duan’s notice?
Did the failure to serve by known electronic means constitute a denial of natural justice?
Was there service pursuant to the Loan Agreements or the Repayment Agreements and Guarantees?

Conclusion

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

This is an application for the enforcement of three foreign judgments.
From 2012, the first plaintiff (Mr Wang) and the defendant (Mr Duan) were engaged in the garment trade. After some years, relations between Mr Wang and Mr Duan soured, and in 2021 and 2022 the plaintiffs obtained three judgments in China against the defendant. The three judgments are:
(a)a judgment entered on 25 February 2021 in the…

Grounds of appeal

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

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

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

Consideration

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

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

Continue reading Wang v Duan

Details

AGLC: Wang v Duan [2025] VSC 516
Case: [2025] VSC 516
Decision Date: 26 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wang v Duan involved a dispute over the enforceability of judgments obtained by the plaintiffs, Wang, from Chinese courts against the defendant, Duan. The plaintiffs had not been aware of, or served with, the process in the Chinese proceedings, though they were aware of Duan’s email and WeChat addresses. Instead of serving Duan through these known electronic means, the plaintiffs served him through public announcement, a method that ultimately led to judgments being obtained against him. The central issue before the court was whether the service was conducted in accordance with Chinese law and the contractual provisions for service, and whether the principles of comity required recognition of the Chinese judgments.

The court addressed whether Duan had been served in accordance with the relevant Chinese law, noting that the service by public announcement was permissible under Chinese law. However, the court also considered whether Duan had been served in accordance with the contractual provision for service, which allowed for service by electronic means. Given that Duan's email and WeChat addresses were known to the plaintiffs, the court applied the decision in Yin v Wu (2023) 73 VR 21, which held that the court should look unfavourably on the failure to notify or serve a defendant by available electronic means. The court found that Duan had been denied natural justice because the plaintiffs did not use the electronic means of service that were available and known to them.

In conclusion, the court held that the principles of comity required by international law must give way to fundamental principles of justice, which includes natural justice. The court found that Duan had been denied natural justice and therefore refused to recognise and register the foreign judgments. This decision reinforces the importance of ensuring that defendants are served in accordance with both the relevant laws and any contractual provisions, particularly where electronic means of service are available and known.

Orders