In a judgement published on the 12th November 2020 in the case Hebei Huaneng Industrial Development Co Ltd v Shi [2020] NZHC 2992, the High Court of New Zealand faced the issue of the enforceability of a Higher People’s Court of Hebei money judgement .
The defendant objected that the judgement should not be enforced because the courts of China are not independent from the government and therefore cannot be qualified as “courts” as far as common law rules on the enforcement of foreign judgments are concerned. The High Court rejected the argument.
The High Court stated that a Court cannot refuse to recognize an entire foreign legal system, which would rise to practical problems. Thus, political interferences may be relevant only if a failure to comply with the standards of natural justice occurred in the individual case.
The Court cited some precedents where the same reasoning had been carried on: in Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner & Keeler Ltd (No 2) [1967] 1 AC 853, the House of Lords recognized the courts of the German Democratic Republic. In Blanco v Banco Industrial de Venezuela 997 F 2d 974 (2nd Cir 1993) the Second Circuit Court of Appeals recognized a judgemenet from Venezuela. On the opposite, a judgment from Liberia was refused recognition in Bridgeway Corp v Citibank 45 F Supp 2d 276 (SDNY 1999), 201 F 3d 134 (2nd Cir 2000), as at that time Liberia had not a functioning court system.
In the case at stake, the Court carefully examined Chinese legal system and noticed that Chinese courts are distinct from the legislative power and the government; moreover, even though there were proofs suggesting that sometimes the courts deliberately met the Communist Party’s expectations, this was not enough to refuse recognition to the chinese system as a whole. Last, as far as the specific case is concerned, the defendant had not proved any actual political interference. Therefore, the judgmeent could be recognized.
Click here for the High Court of New Zealand judgement from the official website.
P.B.
