Yin v Wu

(2023) 73 VR 21; [2023] VSCA 130

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Private International Law
2. › Foreign judgments
3. › Enforcement at common law
4. › Defences to enforcement
5. › Denial of natural justice
6. › Service of process
7. › Service by public notice where defendant not personally served
8. › Onus of proving foreign law authorising alternative service
9. › Whether service by public notice consistent with natural justice where electronic means of communication available
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Summary judgment
3. › Test for summary judgment
4. › Whether defence has real prospect of success
5. › Complex factual disputes
6. › Caution in exercise of summary judgment power
7. › Relationship between ss 63 and 64 of Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic)
1. Restitution
2. › Money had and received
3. › Total failure of consideration
4. › Foreign currency exchange transaction that did not proceed
5. › Whether defence of frozen bank accounts had real prospect of success
1. Evidence
2. › Business records exception to hearsay rule
3. › Admissibility of copy bank statements obtained from foreign court
4. › Authenticity established from face of documents and evidence of provenance
5. › Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), s 69(1)(a)

Quick Take

Where a defendant resisting enforcement of a foreign judgment deposes that they were not personally served and did not receive notice of the foreign proceedings, the onus is on the plaintiff seeking enforcement to establish by evidence the content of the foreign law authorising alternative service and that such law was complied with. The mere statement in a foreign judgment that the defendant was 'legally summoned' is insufficient to discharge that onus. Further, even where foreign law authorises service by public notice, the availability of electronic means of communication known to the plaintiff may render such service inconsistent with natural justice.