Yin v Wu

In the matter of Yin v Wu, the respondent (plaintiff) sought to enforce a judgment obtained from a Chinese court against the applicant (defendant). The primary dispute centred on the validity and enforceability of the Chinese judgment in Australia, as well as the merits of a restitution claim. The case was initially heard by an associate justice who granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff on both the enforcement of the foreign judgment and the restitution claim. The applicant subsequently appealed the associate justice's decision to the Trial Division, which was dismissed.

The legal issues before the court included whether the Chinese judgment could be enforced in Australia, the validity of service of the Chinese court process on the applicant, and the availability of a defence to the restitution claim. The court also considered whether the copy bank statements obtained from the Chinese court were admissible as business records under the Evidence Act 2008. The primary question was whether the applicant's defence had a real prospect of success, particularly concerning the service of the Chinese court's process and the applicant's access to his bank account.

The court held that the applicant had not been personally served with the process in the Chinese court, and there was no evidence that Chinese law authorised service by public notice. Although service by electronic means was possible, it had not been attempted. Consequently, the applicant's defence that he was denied natural justice had a real prospect of success, leading the court to set aside the summary judgment for the Australian dollar equivalent of the Chinese judgment sum. Regarding the restitution claim, the court found that the applicant's defence that he had no access to his bank account because it had been frozen did not have a real prospect of success. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment on the restitution claim.

The court further held that the copy bank statements were admissible as business records under section 69(1)(a) of the Evidence Act 2008. The statements appeared to be records of banking business and were obtained by the Chinese court under its enforcement process. The court applied Matthews v SPI Electricity Pty Ltd (Ruling No 35) [2014] VSC 59 in reaching this decision.

The Trial Division dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the associate justice's decision on the restitution claim. The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment on the balance of the restitution claim.