China Justice Observer


EnglishArabicChinese (Simplified)DutchFrenchGermanHindiItalianJapaneseKoreanPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishHebrewIndonesianVietnameseThaiTurkishMalay

China Dismisses Application for Enforcing a UAE Judgment Due to Translation Errors

Sun, 04 Oct 2020
Categories: Insights

China Dismisses Application for Enforcing a UAE Judgment due to Translation Errors


On 8 May 2020, Chengdu Intermediate People’s Court in Sichuan Province of China (hereinafter “the Chengdu Court”) rendered a ruling to dismiss the application for recognizing and enforcing a civil judgment made by a United Arab Emirates court, due to translation errors in the Chinese version of the application.

Please click here, for the full text of the court decision in Chen Shijun (or Middle East Formwork Scaffold Company) v. China Metallurgical Chenggong Construction Co. Ltd. (2018) Chuan 01 Xie Wai Ren No.3 ((2018)川01协外认3号).

I. Case Overview

The applicant Chen Shijun(陈士俊) (or the Middle East Formwork Scaffold Company) (中东模板脚手架公司) is domiciled in the Emirate of Sharjah, UAE. The respondent is China Metallurgical Chenggong Construction Co. Ltd.(中冶成工建设有限公司), domiciled in Chengdu, China.

The applicant and respondent had a dispute over a lease contract. The Dubai Court of the United Arab Emirates issued the Commercial Judgment No. 255 of 2016 (the “UAE Judgment”) on the dispute.

Afterward, the applicant applied to the Chengdu Court for the recognition and enforcement of the UAE Judgment.

On 14 June 2018, the Chengdu Court accepted the application.

The Chengdu court pointed out that the applicants in the application had both “Chen Shijun” and “Middle East Formwork Scaffold Company”; and in the Chinese translation of the UAE litigation materials submitted by the applicant, one of the materials recorded the defendant as “China Metallurgical Chenggong Shanghai Wuye Construction Co., Ltd., and the other recorded defendant was “China Metallurgical Chenggong Construction Co., Ltd., Dubai Branch”.

Chengdu Court indicated that it could not identify the parties in the case according to the material submitted by the applicant.

For this reason, the Chengdu court requested the applicant to submit additional materials and an accurate Chinese translation of the UAE judgment, which the applicant failed to provide.

On 8 May 2020, the Chengdu Court rendered a ruling to dismiss the application.

II. Our Comments

As we discussed in an earlier post about the Chenzhou Court refusing to recognize a Myanmar judgment, if a Chinese court dismisses the application on the ground of lack of appropriate application documents, the applicant could still file a lawsuit before a Chinese court or re-apply after he is well-prepared. The applicant in this case may still have these options.

The case also shows the importance of application documents and their translation. We will provide a list of documents for the application of enforcing foreign judgments in the near future for your reference.

Contributors: Guodong Du 杜国栋 , Meng Yu 余萌

Save as PDF

Related laws on China Laws Portal

You might also like

Decoding the Turning Point: A Closer Look at China’s Recognition of Japanese Bankruptcy

This follow-up article focuses on the Chinese Court's detailed review of the Shanghai International Corporation case in 2023, highlighting the significance of reciprocity in cross-border bankruptcy proceedings and underscoring China's evolving approach to recognizing foreign judgments (See In re Shanghai International Corporation (2021) Hu 03 Xie Wai Ren No.1).

China’s Wenzhou Court Recognizes a Singapore Monetary Judgment

In 2022, a local Chinese court in Wenzhou, Zhejiang Province, ruled to recognize and enforce a monetary judgment made by the Singapore State Courts, as highlighted in one of the typical cases related to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) recently released by China’s Supreme People’s Court (Shuang Lin Construction Pte. Ltd. v. Pan (2022) Zhe 03 Xie Wai Ren No.4).

Legal Crossroads: Canadian Court Denies Summary Judgment for Chinese Judgment Recognition When Faced with Parallel Proceedings

In 2022, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice of Canada refused to grant summary judgment to enforce a Chinese monetary judgment in the context of two parallel proceedings in Canada, indicating that the two proceedings should proceed together as there was factual and legal overlap, and triable issues involved defenses of natural justice and public policy (Qingdao Top Steel Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Fasteners & Fittings Inc. 2022 ONSC 279).