//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2026] NSWSC 841
Supreme Court of NSW
2026-07-16
Elkaim AJ
Original judgment source is linked above.
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: Yuan Lyu v Guojun Ma [2026] NSWSC 841
Hearing dates: 16 July 2026
Date of orders: 16 July 2026
Decision date: 16 July 2026
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Elkaim AJ
Decision: 1. Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $81,788.37.
2. The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs assessed in the gross sum of $11,745.91.
3. A copy of this decision is to be served on the defendant within 7 days.
4. Service is to be effected by email, SMS, and WeChat.
Catchwords: PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW — Foreign judgments and orders — recognition and enforcement of judgment issued by Fourth Intermediate People's Court of Beijing at common law — no participation by defendant — no issue of principle
Legislation Cited: Foreign Judgements Act 1991 (Cth)
Cases Cited: Bao v Qu; Tian (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 588
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Yuan Lyu (Plaintiff)
Guojun Ma (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
Yuan Lyu (Plaintiff) (self-represented)
Solicitors:
File Number(s): 2026/125769
Publication restriction: No
The proceedings were commenced with the filing of a summons on 27 March 2026. The purpose of the summons is to enforce a judgment which the plaintiff had obtained in a foreign court.
The summons was served on the defendant on 7 May 2026. The service included notice of a directions hearing on 17 June 2026. The defendant has not taken any interest in the proceedings, has not filed a notice of appearance and did not appear at the directions hearing.
The plaintiff appeared on her own behalf today, with the assistance of an interpreter. I asked her about the source of the comprehensive English written submissions that are included in the court book. The plaintiff said they had been prepared with the assistance of a firm of solicitors, but she had reviewed and checked their accuracy. The plaintiff did not wish to make further submissions beyond those in the written submissions.
The original dispute between the parties arose from a contractual relationship concerning a fried chicken franchise. The parties fell out, leading to an agreement that the defendant would take over the shop and pay, in fact repay, to the plaintiff the sum of $178,750.
On 21 September 2016 an Instalment Payment Agreement was signed by the parties, whereby the defendant would pay the plaintiff the remaining balance of $143,000 in instalments. The last instalment was due on 15 April 2018. A later agreement extended the instalment plan to be completed on 15 May 2018. The agreement included an overdue payment interest component of 4% per annum.
The defendant made some repayments but not all of them. Because the defendant refused to make any further payments the plaintiff sued the defendant in the Beijing Chaoyang District People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China.
On 30 August 2024, the above Chinese Court gave judgment for the plaintiff directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff $63,200 (AUD) plus interest at an annual rate of 4% from 16 May 2018 to the date of repayment.
The defendant appealed the decision. The appeal was heard by the Beijing No 4 Intermediate People’s Court which dismissed the appeal on 26 March 2025.
Notwithstanding the loss of the appeal, the defendant did not make any payments to the plaintiff other than $2,044.40 on 10 April 2026.
As I have said, the purpose of the summons is to enforce the judgment of the Chinese Court in Australia. I understand the Foreign Judgements Act 1991 (Cth) does not apply. Accordingly, the plaintiff seeks enforcement under the common law.
The plaintiff relies on the following affidavits:
The plaintiff’s affidavits dated 21 April 2026, 8 May 2026, 30 June 2026, and 9 July 2026.
Mr Joseph Khoury dated 15 April 2026.
Mr John Cullinan dated 7 May 2026.
Mr Khoury and Mr Cullinan are process servers. I am satisfied that the evidence reveals that the summons has been served on the defendant, as has the court book and submissions, and also a notice of today’s hearing. The defendant was also called outside court and did not appear. I am satisfied that the defendant is currently in Australia, has been served in Australia, and is susceptible to the Court’s jurisdiction.
In addition, the plaintiff tendered a schedule of her costs, which I will mark as Exhibit A. The court book will be Exhibit B. The costs total $11,745.91. The plaintiff, I think appropriately, has asked for a gross sum costs order in this amount.
The principles to be applied were summarised by Rothman J in Bao v Qu; Tian (No 2*)* [2020] NSWSC 588, at [26]:
“At common law, a foreign judgment is prima facie capable of recognition and enforcement if the following requirements have been met:
(1) the foreign court must have exercised jurisdiction of the requisite type over the defendant (also known as jurisdiction “in the international sense”);
(2) the judgment must be final and conclusive;
(3) there must be identity of parties between the judgment debtors and the defendants in any enforcement action; and
(4) the judgment must be for a fixed, liquidated sum.”
Starting with jurisdiction, it is clear that the defendant was served with the process in China and submitted to the jurisdiction of the Chinese court. This is put beyond doubt by his appeal of the first decision in China and there being no challenge to jurisdiction in the appeal.
Reading the two decisions in China, the results are plain. The appeal decision ends in this way:
“In conclusion, the appeal and reasons submitted by Ma Guojun are untenable, and the court rejected them all. The first instance judgment is clear in facts ascertaining and correct in the applicable laws, therefore, the court shall maintain it.”
There is no difficulty in ascertaining the identity of the parties. Obviously in this case there is a judgment creditor and a judgment debtor. The judgment debtor has been ordered to pay the judgment sum to the plaintiff.
The judgment is for a fixed liquidated sum, namely $63,200.00. The defendant has since paid $2044.40 leaving an outstanding balance of $61,155.60. Interest, as ordered by the Chinese courts, is payable and to date totals $20,632.77.
The defendant has taken no part in the proceedings so that no defences have been raised to the plaintiff’s claim.
I can see no reason why the whole of the plaintiff’s claim should not be enforced in New South Wales.
**********
Yuan Lyu
Guojun Ma