Yes, in most cases a money judgment from a mainland Chinese court can be enforced in Australia, and so can a judgment from Taiwan, but by different routes. Mainland China is not covered by Australia’s Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth), so a mainland judgment is enforced by suing on it as a debt at common law; Taiwan is listed under that Act, so a Taiwan judgment can be registered. Going the other way, mainland courts and Taiwan’s courts recognise Australian judgments mainly on the basis of reciprocity, and arbitral awards follow separate and often simpler rules.
For families with assets on both sides, the practical question is not only “who is right?” but “if we win, can the decision be enforced where the assets are?”
The four routes at a glance
| Direction | Main legal basis | Key points |
|---|
| Mainland Chinese judgment to Australia | Common law (action on the judgment as a debt) | Final and conclusive, fixed sum, same parties, mainland court had jurisdiction in the international sense; defences include fraud, denial of natural justice and public policy |
| Taiwan judgment to Australia | Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) registration; common law also available | Taiwan’s Supreme Court, High Courts and District Courts are listed; register within six years; the judgment debtor may apply to set registration aside on limited grounds |
| Australian judgment to mainland China | PRC Civil Procedure Law and reciprocity | Application to an intermediate people’s court; no treaty with Australia, so reciprocity must be shown; short time limits |
| Australian judgment to Taiwan | Taiwan’s Code of Civil Procedure, art 402; Compulsory Enforcement Act, art 4-1 | Court action for recognition, then enforcement; jurisdiction, proper service for default judgments, public order and reciprocity |
Mainland Chinese judgments in Australia
The Foreign Judgments Act lets judgments from listed countries be registered in an Australian court. The countries are listed in the Foreign Judgments Regulations 1992 (Cth). Hong Kong SAR and Taiwan are on the list. Mainland China is not. A creditor holding a mainland judgment therefore starts a fresh proceeding in an Australian court, usually a state Supreme Court, and sues on the judgment as a debt.
What the creditor must prove
- Jurisdiction in the international sense. Australian law, not Chinese law, decides whether the mainland court was entitled to bind the defendant. The usual grounds are that the defendant was present or resident in mainland China when the proceeding began, or submitted to the court by appearing and defending on the merits or by agreeing in a contract to its jurisdiction.
- A final and conclusive judgment. The judgment must be final in the court that gave it, even if an appeal is still possible.
- A fixed or readily calculable sum, against the same party bound by the judgment. Non-money orders are not enforced this way.
Australian courts do not re-hear the merits. A defendant cannot argue that the mainland court got the facts or the Chinese law wrong.
What the reported cases show
Since 2017 Australian courts have recognised a series of mainland judgments:
- Liu v Ma [2017] VSC 810 (Supreme Court of Victoria) was the first reported case. It was not opposed.
- Suzhou Haishun Investment Management Co Ltd v Zhao [2019] VSC 110 rejected general allegations of duress and unfairness that were not backed by evidence.
- Bao v Qu; Tian (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 588 enforced a mainland money judgment in NSW and refused to let the defendant reopen the amount.
- Bank of China Ltd v Chen [2022] NSWSC 749 enforced civil mediation statements (民事调解书). Under mainland law these are binding and final, so they were treated as judgments.
- Tianjin Yingtong Materials Co Ltd v Young [2022] NSWSC 943 rejected fraud and natural justice defences. The alleged fraud could have been raised in China, and no new evidence had emerged.
When enforcement fails: service and natural justice
Australian courts have refused enforcement where the defendant had no real chance to defend. In Xu v Wang [2019] VSC 269, the judgment had been obtained without proper notice to the defendant. In Zhou v Jing [2023] NSWSC 214, the defendant had lived in Australia for years and was served by post at her household registration (hukou) and identity card addresses in China. She learned of the case only after enforcement had begun. In Yin v Wu [2023] VSCA 130, Victoria’s Court of Appeal set aside a summary judgment. The mainland court had served the defendant by public announcement, and it was arguable that the creditor knew other ways of contacting him and had not told the court about them.
The lesson cuts both ways. A family member suing in China against a relative in Melbourne should ensure proper service and tell the court what is known of the relative’s whereabouts. A defendant who first hears of a mainland judgment when enforcement arrives should get advice promptly; the defence turns on evidence.
Time limits
An action on a foreign judgment is subject to state limitation laws. In Tianjin Yingtong the NSW court applied the 12-year period in section 17 of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), and the claim was brought just inside it. Each state’s period differs, so check the position early.
Taiwan judgments in Australia
Taiwan is listed in the Foreign Judgments Regulations for its Supreme Court, High Courts and District Courts. A final money judgment from those courts can be registered in an Australian Supreme Court, which is usually quicker and cheaper than suing at common law, and then enforced like a local judgment.
- The application generally must be made within six years after the judgment, or after the last judgment if there was an appeal. The court has power to extend that time.
- The judgment debtor can apply to set the registration aside on limited grounds. These include that the Taiwan court lacked jurisdiction under the Act’s rules, that the debtor did not receive notice in time to defend, that the judgment was obtained by fraud, or that enforcement would be contrary to public policy.
- Judgments of courts not on the list, and judgments outside the Act, can still be enforced at common law on the same principles as mainland judgments.
Hong Kong SAR is also listed, but only for judgments of the Court of Final Appeal and the High Court (the Court of Appeal and the Court of First Instance).
Australian judgments in mainland China
There is no judgment treaty between Australia and mainland China. Under the PRC Civil Procedure Law, a party applies to an intermediate people’s court where the debtor lives or has assets. The court considers reciprocity and whether recognition would breach basic principles of PRC law, sovereignty, security or the public interest. The 2023 amendments to the Civil Procedure Law, in force from 1 January 2024, set out more detailed grounds for refusal. These include the foreign court’s lack of jurisdiction, defective service, fraud and conflicting judgments.
The biggest change came from the Supreme People’s Court’s conference summary on foreign-related commercial and maritime trials, published in January 2022. Mainland courts used to require proof that the foreign country had already recognised a Chinese judgment. Under the summary, reciprocity is generally found if a Chinese judgment could be recognised under the foreign country’s law (“legal reciprocity”). Australian courts have now recognised many mainland judgments, so an Australian creditor has a strong reciprocity argument. Published mainland decisions recognising Australian judgments are still few, however, and outcomes depend on local practice.
In practice:
- Mainland time limits for applying are short compared with Australia’s, so plan the mainland step before the Australian judgment is entered.
- Documents must be certified and translated. Since 7 November 2023 mainland China has been part of the Apostille Convention, so Australian public documents generally need an apostille rather than consular legalisation.
- Money judgments in commercial matters have the clearest path. Punitive elements may be refused.
Australian judgments in Taiwan
Taiwan recognises foreign final judgments under article 402 of its Code of Civil Procedure. Enforcement then follows under article 4-1 of the Compulsory Enforcement Act. Recognition is refused if:
- the foreign court lacked jurisdiction under Taiwan law;
- in a default judgment, the defendant was not served in time in accordance with the law of the foreign country, or through Taiwan’s judicial assistance;
- the judgment or its procedure is contrary to Taiwan’s public order or good morals; or
- there is no reciprocity.
Taiwan’s courts apply the reciprocity requirement leniently. They generally treat it as met unless the foreign country has refused to recognise Taiwan judgments. Australia’s listing of Taiwan under the Foreign Judgments Act supports the argument. In practice the service point matters most: if a defendant in Taiwan may not appear, serve them properly from the outset so a default judgment is not refused later.
Arbitral awards: often the more portable option
Australia and mainland China are both parties to the New York Convention. In Australia, foreign awards are enforced under the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) on narrow grounds. Mainland China applies the Convention with reciprocity and commercial reservations, and a mainland court proposing to refuse a foreign award must report up the court hierarchy.
Taiwan is not a party to the New York Convention. Even so:
- Taiwan awards in Australia. Under section 8(4) of the International Arbitration Act, an award made in a non-Convention country can still be enforced if the person seeking enforcement is domiciled or ordinarily resident in Australia or in a Convention country. An Australian family company holding a Taiwan award will usually qualify.
- Australian awards in Taiwan. Taiwan’s Arbitration Act provides for recognition of foreign awards. Reciprocity is a discretionary ground for dismissal, not an automatic bar.
Hong Kong SAR deserves particular attention for mainland-linked disputes. Hong Kong awards are enforced in the mainland under a dedicated arrangement. Since 2019, parties to Hong Kong-seated institutional arbitrations have been able to apply to mainland courts for preservation of assets and evidence. Mainland China’s revised Arbitration Law, in force from 1 March 2026, also recognises the concept of the seat for foreign-related arbitration.
Drafting the dispute resolution clause
Shareholder agreements and family loan papers often have no dispute clause, or one copied from a precedent. The clause should follow the assets.
| Option | Typical use | Points to weigh |
|---|
| Australian courts (exclusive) | Parties and assets mainly in Australia | Open court; judgment travels to the mainland only by reciprocity; strong interim remedies in Australia |
| Arbitration seated in Melbourne or Sydney (ACICA rules) | Australian company with mainland or Taiwan counterparties | Confidential; New York Convention enforcement in the mainland; language and arbitrators can be agreed |
| Arbitration seated in Hong Kong SAR (HKIAC) or Singapore (SIAC) | Assets in mainland China or across Asia | Hong Kong offers mainland interim measures; both are neutral Asian seats |
| Mainland arbitration (CIETAC or a local commission) | Mainland counterparties and assets | Familiar to the mainland party; enforceable in Australia under the New York Convention |
For family businesses, a tiered clause (negotiation, then mediation, then arbitration) keeps disputes private and gives senior family members a chance to settle before positions harden. State the governing law, language and number of arbitrators.
Suing in Australia when the other side is overseas
Jurisdiction and forum
Court rules allow service outside Australia in defined categories, such as claims about Australian property or contracts governed by Australian law. A foreign defendant may seek a stay only by showing Australia is a “clearly inappropriate forum” (Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538), a harder test than the “more appropriate forum” test used elsewhere.
Service in mainland China and Taiwan
Mainland China and Australia are both parties to the Hague Service Convention. Mainland China has objected to service by postal channels, so service generally goes through the Central Authority, with Chinese translations, and it commonly takes many months. Build that into the timetable. Taiwan is not a party to the Hague conventions, so service there follows court rules and Taiwan’s own procedures. Take advice before attempting it.
Evidence from mainland China
Both countries are parties to the Hague Evidence Convention. Mainland law restricts taking evidence there for foreign proceedings outside approved channels, so confirm what is permitted before a mainland witness gives evidence by video.
Freezing orders
Where there is a real risk that assets in Australia will be moved, Australian courts can make freezing orders, including in some cases in support of a judgment expected from a foreign court. Applications are urgent and require full and frank disclosure.
A typical situation
Consider a typical situation. Two brothers run a family business in Jiangsu. One moves to Melbourne and buys property with funds the other says were a company loan. The mainland brother obtains a judgment from a district people’s court; the Melbourne brother says he was never told of the case. In Australia the first issues will be service and natural justice, finality, and whether the mainland court had jurisdiction over him. Before any enforcement step, mediation in Mandarin may resolve the loan and the property together, recorded as consent orders or a deed.
Practical points
- Map the defendant’s assets first and sue where a decision can be enforced.
- Serve properly and record every attempt to notify the other side, including email and messaging apps.
- Obtain certified copies, proof of finality and certified translations early.
- Watch both countries’ time limits: mainland limits are short; Australian limits vary by state.
- Non-money orders, such as a share transfer, may not travel. Plan for a money alternative.
- Divorce and family property orders follow different rules from commercial judgments.
Mediation and discretion
Australian court proceedings are generally public, and judgments are published under the parties’ names. Mediation is confidential, can be conducted in Mandarin with family members joining online from mainland China or Taiwan, and can cover assets in several countries in one agreement, which can then be recorded as consent orders or a consent arbitral award. See our note on cross-border and Chinese-language mediation. Disputes between siblings over a parent’s assets often raise the same issues; see disputes between siblings in estate administration. Where the dispute turns on whether money was a loan or a gift, see family advances: loan or gift?
How we can assist
We act in Australian proceedings to enforce, or resist, mainland and Taiwan judgments and awards, including freezing orders and jurisdiction disputes. We prepare Australian judgments and documents for use overseas (see notarising Australian documents for use in Taiwan), draft dispute clauses for family business agreements, and work alongside lawyers in mainland China, Taiwan and Hong Kong SAR on the steps there.
Related reading
Chua Tan Associates acts for families and their professional advisers on Australian legal matters with a cross-border dimension, working alongside lawyers and tax advisers in mainland China, Taiwan and Hong Kong. To arrange a confidential consultation, please contact our Melbourne office on +61 3 9602 3988 or submit an enquiry. Advice is available in English, Mandarin and Cantonese.
Justin Chua (蔡智勋), lawyer and mediator, Chua Tan Associates, Melbourne. General information only, not legal or tax advice.
简体中文 
English (Australia) 
繁體中文