Yuan v Zhou

1. [1]

   On 10 November 2025, the plaintiff, Mr Kai Yuan (“the plaintiff”), filed a Summons seeking that judgment be entered for the plaintiff against the defendant, Mr Jian Hua Zhou (“the defendant”), in the sum of A$5,204,541.65, being the equivalent of RMB 24,086,098.28 and interest, in respect of a judgment dated 30 April 2025 in the People's Court of Zhangjiagang City, Giangsu Province, China ("the Chinese judgment").

2. [2]

   In short, the plaintiff sought, by Summons, that this Court recognise and enforce the Chinese judgment, which was said to be wholly unsatisfied by the defendant as at 9 November 2025. On that same date, namely, 10 November 2025, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion (“the motion”) seeking a freezing order against the defendant and a freezing order against Henlong Property Group Pty Ltd (ACN 149767993) (“HPG”). That motion was heard ex parte by the then Duty Judge, Harrison CJ at CL, on 10 November 2025.

3. [3]

   In the proceedings on 10 November 2025, the plaintiff relied upon an affidavit of Mr Dickson Luo (“the Mr Luo first affidavit”), the plaintiff’s solicitor, which set out some procedural history with respect to the Chinese judgment, as well as the circumstances with respect to the assets of the defendant and his family. The Mr Luo first affidavit was relied upon by the plaintiff.

4. [4]

   In the current proceeding, there was a further affidavit of Mr Luo, filed 18 November 2025. That affidavit also came before the Court as part of a bundle of material, which included:

   1. (1)

      written submissions;

   2. (2)

      the Summons filed 10 November 2025;

   3. (3)

      orders made by Harrison CJ at CL on 10 November 2025;

   4. (4)

      the plaintiff’s tender bundle of 10 November 2025;

   5. (5)

      proposed Short Minutes of Order;

   6. (6)

      the affidavit of Mr Luo affirmed 17 November 2025 and accompanying Exhibit; and

   7. (7)

      Affidavit of service by Joseph Khoury sworn 11 November 2025.

5. [5]

   Pursuant to the submissions filed by the plaintiff on 10 November 2025, the plaintiff relied upon the following circumstances to support the application for freezing orders:

   1. (1)

      Mr Yuan seeks final relief to recognise and enforce the Chinese judgment against the defendant, an Australian citizen in Australia.

   2. (2)

      The Chinese judgment remains unsatisfied, despite the defendant’s apparent assets in Australia.

   3. (3)

      In the Chinese proceedings, the defendant appears to have attempted to rely on documents that appear to constitute forged evidence.

   4. (4)

      In or around November 2023, the defendant was aware of the prospect of the Chinese proceedings and the Chinese judgment. This arose in at least two respects:

   5. (5)

      HPG, the registered proprietor of the property in Beecroft, appears to have entered into a contract to sell the Beecroft property, which the defendant had, and may still have, an interest in. It is contended that the defendant has an interest in the Beecroft property because he funded the purchase price.

6. [6]

   I further note that, on the material presently before the Court, HPG is an entity formerly controlled and owned by the defendant, but, since in or around November 2023, has been owned by a company, ZPG, which is owned and controlled by his children. Secondly, the freezing order sought against HPG does not seek to prevent the sale of the Beecroft property, provided it is a bona fide transaction or for a fair market price. However, the order does seek to freeze the net assets of that sale, pending the finalisation of these orders and the proceedings to enforce judgment.

7. [7]

   On 10 November 2025, Harrison CJ at CL made two freezing orders, which were sought by the plaintiff. Those freezing orders had effect up to and including 19 November 2025, being the then return date for the Summons.

8. [8]

   While orders were made for the matter to be listed before the Duty Judge on 19 November, for the return of the Summons, the matter was not formally listed on JusticeLink. On 18 November 2025, a party emailed the Court claiming that the service of 11 November 2025 by the plaintiff was defective and sought a short adjournment. It is unnecessary to attend to the technical issues raised in that communication, other than to note that one of the factors relied upon was a defect in relation to the OneDrive link. Whether that service was properly effected, with the benefit of further evidence and submissions in due course, is a matter that the plaintiff may wish to take up in the further listing of this matter.

9. [9]

   The Summons was made returnable, by the granting by me of the adjournment sought and the vacation of the return date on 19 November 2025, to 1 December 2025, before the Duty Judge.

10. [10]

    As was indicated by senior counsel for the plaintiff, that date was inconvenient to the plaintiff. I do not consider the plaintiff should be inconvenienced in that respect and, accordingly, I propose to move the adjournment date to 4 December 2025, at 10am.

11. [11]

    On 18 November 2025, the plaintiff notified the Court that the freezing orders were due to expire on 19 November 2025. The plaintiff had planned to seek an extension of those freezing orders, upon the return, to protect against the risk of dissipation of the assets by the defendant and HPG. The plaintiff also noted that he would be highly prejudiced if the freezing orders were to expire before the return of the Summons, and claimed that service had, in fact, as I have earlier mentioned, been properly effected.

12. [12]

    When the matter was returned before the Court, there was no appearance for the defendant or the other interested party affected by the freezing orders. A call was made outside the Court for the defendant, to which there was no return. The other interested party was advised of the listing, and, in fact, communicated with the Court in a fashion which would indicate the knowledge of that listing. In any event, it would appear that the plaintiff has taken a similar road, in terms of notice being given to the relevant interests.

13. [13]

    In my view, in the circumstances where the matter had been listed, in any event, today; where notice had been properly given to the relevant interests of the listing today; and where a call was made outside the Court, it was appropriate to proceed ex parte to consider the application for the extension of freezing orders. That is the approach which the Court has adopted, and which is the forerunner to this judgment.

14. [14]

    It appears to me that there is a solid foundation for the granting of the extension of the freezing orders. It, effectively, rises in the same circumstances that Harrison CJ at CL considered on the previous consideration, and is amply supported by the evidence before the Court. In my view, there is a real risk of dissipation of the assets in question, in circumstances where the plaintiff is seeking to enforce a judgment of a Chinese Court.

15. [15]

    Turning then to the Short Minutes of Order. As I indicated to senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff, I do not intend to deal today with relief which existed outside of the four walls of the freezing orders.

16. [16]

    Therefore, I propose to only deal with paragraphs 1 and 2 of the motion, each of them seeking the extension of the previous orders made by Harrison CJ at CL.

17. [17]

    Two further orders were sought, which would have a potential application today, given the rulings I have made. Namely, costs to be reserved and liberty to apply. I see no reason why those orders should not be made.

ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS

1. [18]

   The Court makes the following orders and directions:

   1. (1)

      The listing on 1 December 2025 for return of Summons is vacated.

   2. (2)

      The return of Summons is stood over to 4 December 2025 at 10AM before the Duty Judge.

   3. (3)

      Extend Order 1 of the orders made by Justice Harrison on 10 November 2025 (freezing order against Jian Hua Zhou) until further order of the Court.

   4. (4)

      Extend Order 2 of the orders made by Justice Harrison on 10 November 2025 (freezing order against Henlong property Group Pty Ltd) until further order of the Court.

   5. (5)

      Costs are reserved.

   6. (6)

      Liberty to apply on two day’s notice.