Using a Chinese court judgment to recover assets in Sydney

A creditor with a mainland Chinese money judgment may be able to pursue a debtor’s Sydney assets, but the Chinese judgment is not itself an Australian enforcement warrant. The appropriate recognition process and the value of available assets should be assessed together.

Updated October 2026

Distinguish registration from a common law claim

Sections 5 and 6 of the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth), together with the Foreign Judgments Regulations 1992, establish a registration regime for specified courts and judgments. Mainland Chinese judgments should not be assumed to fall within that regime. If registration is unavailable, a common law action may be necessary. Questions include finality, recognised international jurisdiction, the monetary obligation and possible defences.

A NSW example of enforcement

In Bao v Qu; Tian (No 2) (2020) 102 NSWLR 435; [2020] NSWSC 588, the Supreme Court of NSW enforced a mainland Chinese judgment at common law. The decision demonstrates that the absence of statutory registration does not necessarily prevent recovery. It does not mean every Chinese judgment qualifies. Fraud, natural justice, public policy and the foreign court’s jurisdiction can require detailed examination on the evidence.

Bring the underlying procedural record

Obtain the complete judgment, proof of its legal effect, service documents and details of any appeal or later payment. Chinese law evidence and certified or otherwise suitably verified translations may be necessary. A creditor should be ready to explain how the debtor was notified and what opportunity existed to participate. A debtor should preserve that same material if challenging enforcement.

Make the Australian step commercially useful

Identify property, bank accounts, corporate interests and competing security interests before incurring substantial litigation costs. Recognition and asset preservation are distinct issues; urgent protective orders need their own factual and legal basis. Obtain advice on applicable limitation periods promptly. Coordinating the Chinese lawyers’ records with the NSW claim can avoid inconsistent evidence and clarify what amount remains genuinely outstanding.

Key legislation and cases

Author: Davis Kwok

Last updated: October 2026

Jurisdiction: New South Wales, Australia

Disclaimer: This article provides general information only and does not constitute legal, financial or tax advice. The law may change and its application depends on individual circumstances. You should obtain professional advice before acting on the information contained in this article.