On 15 May 2026, Parker J of the Supreme Court of NSW delivered judgment in Hong v Guo [2026] NSWSC 530.

This proceeding raised a number of issues of interest to practitioners advising on the enforcement of foreign judgments in Australia. Two are particularly notable. First, how does an Australian court approach a defence that a foreign judgment should not be enforced on the ground of fraud? Secondly, how does an Australian court assess the question of whether the requirements of natural justice have been satisfied, where, among other things, a judgment debtor has left the jurisdiction and been served by public notice in accordance with the foreign court’s own procedure?

In the proceedings the Plaintiff sought to enforce a 2016 judgment of the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court arising from loan agreements under which the Defendant borrowed over RMB 548 million at an interest rate of 2.5% per month. As the Defendant’s business collapsed during the first half of 2015, he signed a Confirmation Letter acknowledging a debt of RMB 185.7 million. The Defendant left China a few months later for Sydney, where he held permanent residency. The Plaintiff filed proceedings in the Shenzhen Court. The Defendant did not appear, and judgment was entered against him for the full amount with interest at an annualised rate of 24%.
In the NSW proceedings, the Defendant accepted that the requirements for prima facie enforcement or a foreign judgment (privity of parties, a liquidated sum, a final judgment and jurisdiction in the “international sense”) were met. However, the Defendant argued that the Chinese judgment should not be enforced for two reasons: first, it had been procured by fraud; and secondly, the Defendant had not been given due notice of the Chinese proceedings.

Parker J rejected both defences. On the fraud defence, Parker J found that the allegations of fraud were not substantiated by the evidence. His Honour also found that the fraud defence rested, at least in part, upon the defendant’s credibility being ‘manifestly superior’ to the plaintiff, and that ‘if anything…the reverse [was] the case’.

On the notice defence, Parker J found the Defendant had contractually agreed to a service address in the loan documents, had maintained a Shenzhen “shadow office” specifically to monitor legal correspondence after leaving China, and had failed to call the former employees and lawyers who could have shed light on what he actually knew. As Parker J observed, a judgment debtor who makes himself hard to find may find it correspondingly hard to establish that he was not given notice.

Judgment was entered in the Plaintiff’s favour for RMB 698,567,004 (approximately AU$140,000,000 at current exchanges rates), with costs.

Jonathan Kay Hoyle SC and James Foley of 11 St James Hall appeared for the successful Plaintiff, instructed by Preece Lin Lawyers. A link to the judgment is available here: https://lnkd.in/gpzjs_yE