Background
Tao Hong obtained a 2016 judgment against Wencheng Guo from the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court arising from loan transactions. The Chinese judgment awarded ¥185.7 million, plus 24% annual interest from July 2015 and additional interest under art 253 of China’s Civil Procedure Law after default.
In May 2026, the NSW Supreme Court enforced the Chinese judgment, including interest accrued to the Australian judgment. Mr Guo then sought to reopen his defence and vary the judgment, contending that the interest components were penal and unenforceable as contrary to NSW public policy. Mr Hong separately sought execution remedies after a Registrar declined to issue garnishee orders.
The Court’s Holding
Parker J dismissed Mr Guo’s variation motion. The proposed challenge was not compelling: any contractual limitation issue was governed by Chinese law, yet no Chinese-law limitation defence had been pleaded or proved. The Chinese interest awarded up to the NSW judgment was properly treated as pre-judgment interest, not as NSW statutory post-judgment interest.
The 24% base interest reflected a contractual rate, subject to a Chinese-law cap, and was not shown to be penal. The additional art 253 interest was also not penal merely because it followed default; prior NSW first-instance authorities had treated that interest as compensatory rather than punitive. Reopening was additionally inappropriate because Mr Guo had deliberately abandoned the point at trial without explanation.
Key Takeaways
- A foreign judgment’s interest entitlement may be recognised as pre-judgment interest when enforcing that judgment in NSW.
- Chinese art 253 additional interest was not established to be a foreign penal sanction.
- A pending appeal or variation application does not stay enforcement without a stay order.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that foreign judgment debtors must raise available objections at trial and support issues governed by foreign law with proper pleadings and evidence. A later change in litigation strategy, even where substantial sums are involved, will not ordinarily justify reopening a concluded case.
The Court set aside the Registrar’s refusal and ordered garnishee processes, a writ of levy, asset-preservation measures, document production and examination. It refused to adjourn enforcement pending appeal because no stay had been sought or obtained.