IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CIV 2018-404-664
[2023] NZHC 1395
BETWEEN
YOONWOO C & C DEVELOPMENT CORP
Plaintiff
AND
JAE HO HUH
Defendant
Hearing:
22 – 26 August 2022
Appearances:
A J B Holmes & N Foulis for Plaintiff Defendant in Person
Judgment:
6 June 2023
JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J
This judgment was delivered by me on 6 June 2023 at 2.15 pm pursuant to
Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.
Registrar/ Deputy Registrar
Solicitors: Loo & Koo, Newmarket, Auckland
Counsel: A J B Holmes & N M Foulis, Auckland
YOONWOO C & C DEVELOPMENT CORP v JAE HO HUH [2023] NZHC 1395 [6 June 2023]
[1] The plaintiff, Yoonwoo C & C Development Corp, (Yoonwoo) seeks to enforce what it contends are two foreign judgments of the Republic of Korea that are capable of enforcement under this Court’s common law jurisdiction for enforcement of foreign judgments. The defendant, Jae Ho Huh, who represents himself, opposes this action on the ground the so-called judgments1 are not capable of such registration.
[2] The legal tests for using this Court’s inherent jurisdiction under the common law to enforce foreign judgments are well established. It is common ground that the subject judgments are not capable of registration under either the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1934 or s 56 of the Judicature Act 1908.2
[3] There are two key issues here: (a) whether the judgments are time barred, which is a complete answer to their enforceability; and (b) if they are not time barred whether they meet the relevant legal tests for enforcement under the common law.
Are the judgments time barred?
[4] I am going to deal with the time bar issue first because even if the legal tests are met if the enforcement action falls outside the relevant limitation period that is the end of the matter. There is no discretion to extend the limitation period.3
[5] It is common ground that the relevant legislation is the now repealed Limitation Act 1950 (LA 1950).4
[6]The relevant passages of the LA 1950 are as follows:
4 Limitation of actions of contract and tort, and certain other actions –
1 For ease of reference I shall refer to them as judgments.
2 The Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1934 provides for registration of foreign judgments of certain specified countries none of which includes the Republic of Korea. Section 56 of the now repealed Judicature Act 1908 was in force at the time the subject judgments were delivered. This provision provided a self-contained regime for enforcing judgments obtained in any court of Her Majesty’s Dominions, which therefore excludes the Republic of Korea. The latter’s successor is now to be found in the Senior Courts Act 2016, s 172.
3 Hodge v Residual Health Management Unit (2000) 15 PRNZ 85 (HC).
4 The two Korean judgments were delivered on 9 May 2010. The Limitation Act 1950, s 2A provides that this…
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 Yoonwoo C & C Development Corp v Huh
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Yoonwoo C & C Development Corp v Huh [2023] NZHC 1395
Case
[2023] NZHC 1395
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Yoonwoo C & C Development Corp sought to enforce two foreign judgments from the Republic of Korea against Jae Ho Huh. The defendants opposed the enforcement of the judgments on the ground that they were not capable of enforcement under the common law jurisdiction of this Court. The Court had to determine the legal tests for using this Court’s inherent jurisdiction to enforce foreign judgments, and whether the judgments met those tests. The Court held that the two key issues were whether the judgments were time barred, and if they were not, whether they met the relevant legal tests for enforcement. The Court found that the judgments were time barred under s 4(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1950, as they were commenced more than six years after the judgments were delivered. The Court found that the contract/debt-based cause of action was the appropriate pleading/cause of action for enforcement of unregistered foreign judgments under the common law, and that the relevant limitation period was s 4(1)(a) of the LA 1950. The Court found that the Korean judgments were final and conclusive, and that the Uijeongbu District Court had jurisdiction to rule on the subject matter. The Court found that Mr Huh submitted to the jurisdiction of the Uijeongbu District Court by voluntarily appearing in the proceedings. However, the Court found that the judgments were time barred, and therefore dismissed Yoonwoo’s claims for enforcement.