Zhang v Zhao (No 3)

[2025] VSC 810

Supreme Court of Victoria

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Evidence
2. › Admissibility
3. › Relevance
4. › Whether foreign court judgment rationally capable of affecting assessment of probability of fact in issue
1. Evidence
2. › Hearsay
3. › Exceptions
4. › Business records
5. › Whether document from private website constitutes record belonging to or kept by a business
1. Evidence
2. › Admissibility
3. › Exclusion of evidence of judgments and convictions
4. › Section 91 Evidence Act 2008 (Vic)
5. › Foreign court judgment
1. Evidence
2. › Facilitation of proof
3. › Proof of contents of documents
4. › Documents in foreign countries
5. › Section 48 Evidence Act 2008 (Vic)
6. › Whether section provides independent head of admissibility

Quick Take

The Court refused to admit a Chinese court judgment and a Chinese company search document into evidence. The judgment was excluded as irrelevant under s 55 and also barred by s 91 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), as it was tendered to prove facts in issue in the foreign proceeding without falling within the s 92 exceptions. The company search document, obtained from a private Chinese website (TianYanCha), was excluded because the plaintiffs failed to establish it formed part of records belonging to or kept by TianYanCha for the purposes of the business records exception in s 69, and s 48(1) was confirmed as merely facilitative of proof rather than an independent head of admissibility, following Slater v The Queen. The Court also held that s 156 did not assist because TianYanCha was not a body reasonably supposed to have custody of Chinese government public documents.