Yangpu Huigu Pharmaceutical Corporation Limited v He

The dispute between Yangpu Huigu Pharmaceutical Corporation Limited and He concerned the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment from the People’s Republic of China. The plaintiff sought to enforce a judgment from the Chinese People’s Court against the defendant in Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the Chinese judgment should be recognised and enforced under Australian common law. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the judgment to be enforced had to be determined to be a judgment by reference to the law of the foreign jurisdiction or the law of the forum.

The court considered whether the judgment to be enforced should be assessed according to the laws of China or Australia. The court noted that while the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments at common law traditionally require a judgment to be final and conclusive in the country where it was made, the characterisation of the judgment must be made in accordance with the law of the foreign jurisdiction. The court further examined whether the judgment in question met the criteria for recognition under Australian law, which includes being a final judgment, being rendered by a court with jurisdiction, and not being contrary to public policy. Ultimately, the court found that the judgment should be assessed according to the laws of China to determine its enforceability in Australia. Based on this assessment, the court concluded that the Chinese judgment met the necessary criteria and could be enforced under Australian law.

The court's reasoning led to the decision that the Chinese judgment could be enforced in Australia. The court found that the judgment was final, rendered by a court with jurisdiction, and not contrary to public policy. As such, the court granted the plaintiff's application to enforce the foreign judgment. The court ordered that the Chinese judgment be recognised and enforced in accordance with the laws of Australia, subject to the conditions set out in the judgment. This decision allowed the plaintiff to proceed with enforcing the judgment against the defendant in Australia.