CHINA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Yaxing Zhang, Bing San, Lubin Qiang and Jiahui Zhu, Han Kun Law Offices
Together, these cases signal a transformation in Chi - na’s approach to cross-border civil judicial assistance, marking its transition from a passive to a proactive contributor in the global recognition of judgments regime. Grounds for Refusal in Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Recent Chinese Practice As globalisation deepens, a growing number of appli - cations have been filed to Chinese courts for recog - nition and enforcement of foreign judgments. While a significant majority have been granted, a notable proportion of applications were refused due to pro - cedural flaws, jurisdictional issues or conflicts with domestic legal principles. The authors will analyse the major grounds and representative cases where Chinese courts have declined to recognise or enforce foreign judgments over the past five years. Legal basis and framework for review Under Articles 299 and 300 of the PRC Civil Procedure Law and its judicial interpretation, the Chinese courts adopt a “limited substantive review” model. After the establishment of reciprocity, the courts focus on five enumerated grounds for refusal: (i) the foreign court lacked jurisdiction under Chinese law; (ii) the defend - ant was not duly summoned or given a fair chance to be heard; (iii) the judgment was obtained through fraud; (iv) a Chinese or third-country court has already adjudicated the same dispute; and (v) the enforcement would violate China’s fundamental legal principles or public interest, a residual ground for denial. Recent Chinese practice The legal rules outlined above are the foundation for the courts’ analytical framework. In practice, courts assess each application by matching statutory grounds with factual circumstances. The following cases illustrate how these grounds are applied. Improper service or denial of due process In Case (2020) Liao 01 Xie Wai Ren No 7 , the court dismissed the enforcement request due to a failure to timely file an application. This demonstrates the strict procedural requirements Chinese courts impose on foreign judgments.
In Case (2020) Jing 04 Xie Wai Ren No 2 , the Bei - jing Fourth Intermediate People’s Court refused to recognise and enforce a civil judgment issued by the Udmurtia Commercial Court of the Russian Federa - tion. Applying the Treaty Between the People’s Repub - lic of China and the Russian Federation on Judicial Assistance in Civil and Criminal Matters, the court found that the Russian court had not lawfully sum - moned the Chinese respondent. The time between the delivery of the judicial assistance requests and the hearing was less than six months, failing to meet the due process standards under both the bilateral treaty and the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Com - mercial Matters. As a result, the recognition of the foreign judgment was denied. Such procedural issues frequently arise in default judgments or informal service scenarios. Chinese courts apply a heightened scrutiny when due process protections are lacking. Conflict with Chinese or third-country judgments In Case (2018) Yue 03 Min Chu No 420 , the court declined to recognise a New Zealand judgment as a related case was pending in a Chinese court. This reflects China’s commitment to maintaining its own jurisdiction and avoiding contradictory outcomes. This provision prevents inconsistent judgments and upholds legal certainty. Violation of fundamental legal principles or public policy In Cases (2019) Yue 01 Xie Wai Ren No 22 , the Guangzhou court partially recognised US judgments but refused to enforce the punitive damages, which significantly exceeded the actual damages, citing inconsistency with the Chinese compensatory civil law framework. This flexible standard illustrates how Chinese courts balance domestic legal values with the demands of international co-operation. In conclusion, foreign parties and counsel should pay close attention to key elements such as jurisdictional basis, due service and public policy considerations.
109 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook