Xiong Wei & Anor v Wang Jinhong

A foreign judgment can be final and conclusive for common-law enforcement while an appeal, retrial application or supervisory review remains possible, if it is res judicata, binding and enforceable in the foreign forum. The English court does not reopen the merits or require the foreign court to address every argument in the same way as an English court. The natural-justice exception is narrow and centres on substantial procedural justice and a fair opportunity to present the case. Where a judgment debtor had a fair trial and appeal, possessed relevant evidence, and chose not to adduce it at the available stage, an extraordinary retrial process that did not consider an unpleaded ground does not make enforcement unjustified.

Wenda Co Ltd and its director, Xiong Wei, sought to enforce in England a Chinese judgment ordering Wang Jinhong to pay Wenda US$2,129,116 plus interest. The judgment arose from derivative proceedings in the Dalian Court, was affirmed by the Liaoning High Court, and was left standing after a retrial application.

The defendant argued that the judgment was not final and conclusive because a supervisory application remained possible, and that enforcement was barred by natural justice because the Liaoning High Court did not address an auditor’s report submitted on the retrial application. The supervisory application was rejected before judgment. The issues were whether the judgment was enforceable at common law and whether the foreign proceedings were procedurally unfair.

Disposition

Judgment for the claimants. The court rejected both defences and enforced the Chinese Judgment at common law.

1. Finality. A foreign judgment is enforceable at common law if the foreign court had jurisdiction, the judgment is not for a tax or penalty, and it is final and conclusive. Finality may exist despite a pending appeal or other foreign review where the judgment remains res judicata, binding and enforceable in the foreign forum. That approach was supported by Colt v Sarlie (No. 2) [1966] 1 WLR 1287 and Transworld Payment Solutions UK Limited and others v First Curacao International Bank NV [2025] EWHC 2480 (Ch). If the foreign judgment is later set aside, the English enforcing judgment can be addressed under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 3.1(7).
2. Scope of earlier authorities. Nouvion v Freeman (1889) 15 App Cas 1 (HL) and Blohn v Desser [1962] 2 QB 116 did not establish that a judgment ceases to be final merely because a court missed an argument. They concerned judgments which did not create a res judicata against the relevant party.
3. Natural justice. The exception is restrictive. The inquiry concerns procedural regularity, substantial justice and a fair opportunity to present the case, not the merits of the foreign decision. The court followed the approach in Pemberton v Hughes [1899] 1 Ch 781 (CA), applied the summary in JSC VTB Bank v Skurikhin [2014] EWHC 271 (Comm), and applied the procedural-fairness approach in SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Limited [2018] EWHC 3452 (Comm).
4. Application. The defendant had no complaint about the first-instance trial or the appeal. The Leapman Weiss Report was available by the appeal but was not adduced. Under the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (2023 Amendment), she relied on retrial grounds corresponding to Article 211(2) and Article 211(6), but not the new-evidence ground in Article 211(1). The Liaoning High Court was not required to consider an unpleaded ground of its own motion. The Notice of the Supreme People's Court on Issuing Several Opinions on Accepting and Examining the Petitions for Retrial of Civil Cases was not inconsistent with the governing law. Articles 385 and 386 of the Chinese Interpretation also made late reliance on evidence available at the appeal stage highly problematic. The retrial application was therefore lawfully rejected and there was no breach of natural justice.
5. Final order. The claimants were granted the relief sought. Consequential matters, including interest and costs, were left for the draft order and further submissions.

High Court: The claim was determined at first instance. The judgment records that the Chinese Judgment was given by the Dalian Court, affirmed by the Liaoning High Court on 11 November 2022, and left standing when the retrial application was dismissed on 13 November 2023. A later supervisory application was rejected on 10 March 2026. Those were stages of the foreign proceedings, not appellate stages in this English claim.