2018 CJO Report: Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in China

Image


By Meng Yu &  Guodong Du 


In 2018, Chinese courts have heard a total of 25 cases in relation to recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

I. Annual Review

Results for recognition and enforcement of these arbitral awards are as below:

  • 14 arbitral awards were recognized and enforced;
  • 1 arbitral award was refused to be recognized and enforced;
  • 1 case where the application for recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards was dismissed;
  • 8 cases where the applicants withdrew the application for recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards;
  • 1 case where the application for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award was transferred to another competent court by the court concerned.

The number of aforementioned arbitral awards made by different arbitral institutions or arbitrators:

  • 2 Arbitral awards made by the ICC International Court of Arbitration;
  • 2 Arbitral awards made by the Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIACC);
  • 1 Arbitral award made by the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB, 대한상사중재원);
  • 4 Arbitral awards made by the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA);
  • 4 Arbitral awards made by the International Cotton Association (ICA);
  • 5 Arbitral awards made by the Federation of Oils, Seeds and Fats Associations (FOSFA);
  • 1 Arbitral award made by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS);
  • 1 Arbitral award made by the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation (ICAC, Международный коммерческий арбитражный суд);
  • 3 Arbitral awards made by ad hoc arbitrators or arbitral tribunals;
  • 2 Arbitral awards made by unknown arbitrators or arbitral tribunals.

In 2018, the only arbitral award which was refused to be recognized and enforced was made by an ad hoc arbitrator (See the Case of Palmer Maritime Inc.’s application for recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award made by Patrick O’Donovan in London). The court refused to recognize and enforce the arbitral award pursuant to the public policy exception under Article V(2)(b) of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention). The court held that the arbitration agreement concerned in the arbitral award has been invalidated by the Chinese court, and therefore, recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award would be in violation of China's public policy. To our knowledge, it was the second time that China refused to recognize and enforce foreign arbitral awards on the basis of public policy. (The first time when China refused to recognize and enforce foreign arbitral awards on such ground was in Hemofarm case in 2008 (Case of Hemofarm DD, MAG International Trading Co., Ltd. and Surah Media Co., Ltd. ‘s application for recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award made by the ICC)). Pursuant to China’s internal report and review mechanism, if a local court intends not to recognize a foreign arbitral award, it has to request approval by the Supreme People's Court (SPC). Therefore, we reasonably believe that the arbitral award has been reviewed by the SPC and that SPC agreed not to recognize and enforce it.

In 2018, there is only one case where the application was dismissed, on the ground that the applicant does not comply with the authentication and certification requirements under Chinese law (See the case of Sea Dolphin Shipping Ltd.’s application for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award made by the LMAA on 16 May 2017). The applicant is a company registered in the Marshall Islands, a country that has no diplomatic relations with China. Under such circumstances, the applicant has to comply with some special requirements on authentication and certification under Chinese law. Considering that there is an increasing number of maritime cases involving companies registered in the Marshall Islands, this is definitely a noteworthy case, especially for those companies to follow China’s special rules on authentication and certification.

II. Case Summaries

1. An ad hoc arbitral award made by a sole arbitrator was refused to be recognized and enforced

Catchwords: ad hoc arbitration – arbitration agreement – public policy

The case of Palmer Maritime Inc.’s application for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award made by the sole arbitrator, Patrick O’ Donovan in London, UK, on 9 September 2016, against the respondent, China Animal Husbandry Industry Co., Ltd (Case No. [2017] Jin 72 Xie Wai Ren No. 1 ([2017]津72协外认1号)) .

Tianjin Maritime Court registered the case on 3 January 2017, and rendered a ruling on 21 July 2018 to refuse to recognize and enforce the said arbitral award.

The applicant is the bareboat charterer of the vessel, “TOBA”, while China Animal Husbandry Industry Co., Ltd ("CAHIC") is the holder of the bill of lading. The two parties had disputes due to cargo loss during the cargo shipment of "TOBA". The applicant filed an arbitration request in London in accordance with the bill of lading, and the respondent was absent from the arbitration proceedings.

The respondent filed a lawsuit in Guangzhou Maritime Court in May 2016, requesting the applicant to assume the liabilities for damages. The applicant raised an objection to jurisdiction on the grounds that the two parties had an arbitration agreement. On 16 October 2017 (after the above-mentioned ad hoc arbitral award was made), the Guangzhou Maritime Court found that the arbitration clause in question was not valid and rendered the ruling “(2016) Yue 72 Min Chu No. 75” ((2016)粤72民初75号) to dismiss the applicant's objection to jurisdiction. (Note: The applicant is dissatisfied with the ruling and appealed to the Guangdong High People's Court, which rendered the second-instance ruling “(2017) Yue Min Xia Zhong No.857” ((2017)粤民辖终857号), reaffirming that the arbitration clause is invalid. But the Tianjin Maritime Court did not refer to the said second-instance ruling.)

The Tianjin Maritime Court held that since the Chinese courts have negated the existence and validity of the arbitration clause, the recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award pursuant to the above arbitration clause would violate China's public policy. Accordingly, the Tianjin Maritime Court held that the arbitral award should not be recognized in accordance with Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention and the CPL. 

2. The application for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award made by the LMAA on 16 May 2017 was dismissed

Catchwords: formal conditions (authentication and certification)

The case of Sea Dolphin Shipping Ltd.’s application for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award made by the LMAA on 16 May 2017, against the respondent, Xiamen Jianfa Agricultural Products Co., Ltd. (Case No. [2017] Min 72 Xie Wai Ren No. 1([2017]闽72协外认1号民事裁定书)).

Xiamen Maritime Court rendered a ruling on 19 December 2018, dismissing the application for recognition and enforcement of the said LMAA arbitral award.

The applicant and the respondent had a dispute over the voyage charter agreement, and the applicant applied to the LMAA for arbitration. As a result, the LMAA made the arbitral award on 16 May 2016.

The court held that the applicant does not comply with the authentication and certification requirements under Chinese law, and thus the application shall be dismissed in accordance with Article IV 1 (a) of the New York Convention. 

The court found that the applicant is a company registered in the Marshall Islands, a country that has no diplomatic relations with China. The identity documents and the power of attorney submitted to the court by the applicant were notarized by the special representative from the State Maritime Administration of the Marshall Islands and by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Hellenic Republic in Greece. However, pursuant to Art. 524 of the 2015 Interpretations of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the P. R.C. Civil Procedure Law, under such circumstances, i.e., where the notarization and certification procedures are required but the country of domicile of the foreign party concerned has no diplomatic relations with China, relevant documents may first be notarized by a notary public office in the country of domicile of the foreign party, be certified by the embassy/consulate in the said country of a third country that has diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China, and thereafter be certified by the embassy/consulate of the People's Republic of China in the said third country. It is clear that the applicant does not comply with such requirements on authentication and certification.

3. The No. 21190/TO arbitral award made by the ICC was recognized and enforced

Catchwords: arbitration agreement – due process (service of process)

The case of Glencore Operations South Africa (Pty) Ltd’s application for recognition and enforcement of the No. 21190/TO arbitral award made by the ICC, against the respondent, Northern Heavy Industries Group Co., Ltd. (Case No. [2018] Liao 01 Xie Wai Ren No. 8 ([2018] 辽01协外认8号)) 

The case was registered by Shenyang Intermediate People's Court of Liaoning Province on 14 June 2018, and a ruling was rendered on 6 September 2018, approving the application for recognition and enforcement of the said ICC arbitral award.

The applicant and the respondent entered into relevant sales agreements on 27 May 2011. Afterwards, disputes arose between the two parties over the maintenance fees and losses of the goods. The applicant therefore filed an arbitration request with the ICC, and the ICC conducted arbitration proceedings in South Africa and rendered an arbitral award on 30 May 2017.

The court held that the arbitral award should be recognized and enforced in accordance with the New York Convention and the PRC Civil Procedure Law (CPL).

4. The No. ARB008/16/JC arbitral award made by the SIAC was recognized and enforced

Catchwords: irregular procedure (composition of the arbitral authority) - due process (service of process)

The case of Golden Agri international Pte Ltd’s application for recognition and enforcement of the No. ARB008/16/JC arbitral award made by SIAC in 2016, against the respondent, Shandong Changhua Industrial Development Co., Ltd. (Case No. [2017] Lu 11 Xie Wai Ren No. 4 ([2018] 鲁11协外认4号)).

The case was registered by Rizhao Intermediate People's Court of Shandong Province on 5 September 2017, and a ruling was rendered on 23 August 2018, approving the application for recognition and enforcement of the said SIAC arbitral award.

The applicant and the respondent had a dispute over the sales contract, and the applicant applied to the SIAC for arbitration. The respondent did not submit a plea and did not participate in the arbitration proceedings. As a result, the SIAC made the default arbitral award on 22 September 2016.

The court held that the arbitral award should be recognized and enforced in accordance with the New York Convention, the CPL and applicable judicial interpretations. 

5. Two arbitral awards made by the LMAA on 1 November 2016 were recognized and enforced

Catchwords: jurisdiction (competent court) – related lawsuit

The cases of China Land Shipping Pte. Ltd.’s application for recognition and enforcement of two arbitral awards made by the LMAA on 1 November 2016, against the respondent, Conor Shipping Company Limited. (these two cases are respectively the case of “[2018] Jin 72 Min Te No. 2” ([2018] 津72民特2号) and the case of “[2018] Jin 72 Min Te No. 3” ([2018] 津72民特3号)) .

Tianjin Maritime Court registered the cases on 16 January 2018 and rendered rulings on 25 May 2018, approving the application for recognition and enforcement of the said LMAA arbitral awards.

The applicant and the respondent signed a time charter on trip basis (TCT), and the two parties initiated an arbitration at the LMAA due to disputes over the cargo losses. The arbitral tribunal of the LMAA made two arbitral awards on 1 November 2016. The applicant is a company registered in Singapore while the applicant is a company registered in Liberia. Both companies’ domiciles are not in Mainland China.

The court found that the shipper involved in the cargo dispute between the two parties was Tianjin Tiangang International Trade Co., Ltd. ("Tiangang"). When applying for recognition and enforcement of the LMAA's arbitral award, the applicant also referred Tiangang as the defendant and the respondent as a third party in the lawsuit which it filed for recovery.

In accordance with Article 3 of “Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Judicial Review of Arbitration Cases” (最高人民法院关于审理仲裁司法审查案件若干问题的规定), “ Where a foreign arbitral award relates to a case pending before a people's court, neither the place of the domicile of the respondent nor the place of the property of the respondent is located in the Mainland, and the applicant applies for recognition of the foreign arbitral award, the people’s court before which the related lawsuit is pending shall be competent to hear the application”. Therefore, the court held that the application for recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards had relation to the aforesaid pending lawsuit, and the court was competent to hear the case for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral awards.

The court held that the arbitral awards should be recognized and enforced in accordance with the New York Convention, the CPL and applicable judicial interpretations.

6. The arbitral award made by the LMAA on 21 September 2017 was recognized and enforced

Catchwords: default judgment

The case of Guangdong Cosco Shipping Heavy Industry Co., Ltd.’s application for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award made by LMAA on 21 September 2017, against the respondent, Bramco. L.L.C. (Case No. [2018] Yue 72 Xie Wai Ren No. 2 ([2018] 粤72协外认2号)).

The case was registered by Guangzhou Maritime Court on 8 August 2018, and a court ruling was rendered on 13 November 2018, approving the application for recognition and enforcement of the said LMAA arbitral award.

The applicant and the respondent had a dispute over the vessel retrofitting contract, and the applicant applied to the LMAA for arbitration. As a result, the LMAA made the arbitral award on 21 September 2017.

The court held that the arbitral award should be recognized and enforced in accordance with the New York Convention, the CPL and applicable judicial interpretations.

7. The No. A01/2012/222 arbitral award made by the ICA was recognized and enforced

Catchwords: arbitration agreement - due process (service of process)

The case of Louis Dreyfus Commodities Suisse SA’s application for recognition and enforcement of the No. A01/2012/222 arbitral award made by the ICA, against the respondent, Ningbo Future Import & Export Co., Ltd. (Case No. [2015] Zhe Yong Zhong Que Zi No. 5 ([2015] 浙甬仲确字第5号)).

The case was registered by Ningbo Intermediate People's Court of Zhejiang Province on 7 December 2015, and a ruling was rendered on 28 January 2018, approving the application for recognition and enforcement of the said ICA arbitral award.

The applicant and the respondent signed a series of raw cotton sales contracts for the period from July to October 2010. However, the parties had disputes during the performance thereof. The applicant therefore filed an arbitration request with the ICA pursuant to the arbitration clause therein. The ICA rendered an arbitral award on 28 October 2014. The court held that the arbitral award should be recognized and enforced in accordance with the New York Convention and the CPL.

8. The No. A01/2012/152 arbitral award made by the ICA was recognized and enforced

Catchwords: formal conditions (authentication and certification) – arbitration agreement - the jurisdiction defence 

The case of JessSmith & Sons Cotton, LLC’s application for recognition and enforcement of the No. A01/2012/222 arbitral award made by the ICA on 26 March 2015, against the respondent, Shandong Qingrun Import and Export Co., Ltd., Ltd. (Case No. [2016] Lu 02 Wai Xie Ren Zi No. 3 ([2016] 鲁02协外认3号)).

The case was registered by Qingdao Intermediate People's Court of Shandong Province, and a ruling was rendered on 26 April 2018, approving the application for recognition and enforcement of the said ICA arbitral award.

The applicant and the respondent signed three sales contracts. However, the parties had disputes during the performance thereof. The applicant therefore filed an arbitration request with the ICA pursuant to the arbitration clause therein. The ICA rendered an arbitral award on 26 March 2015.

The court held that the arbitral award should be recognized and enforced in accordance with the New York Convention and the CPL.

9. The No. A01/2016/01 arbitral award made by the ICA was recognized and enforced

Catchwords: due process (service of process)

The case of Olam International Limited’s application for recognition and enforcement of the No. A01/2016/01 arbitral award made by the ICA on 5 September 2016, against the respondent, Zhengzhou Chaoge Spinning Co., Ltd. (Case No. [2015] Zhe Yong Zhong Que Zi No. 5 ([2015] 浙甬仲确字第5号)).

The case was registered by Zhengzhou Intermediate People's Court of Henan Province on 27 December 2018, approving the application for recognition and enforcement of the said ICA arbitral award.

The applicant and the respondent signed three sales contracts of raw cotton. However, the parties had disputes during the performance thereof. The applicant therefore filed an arbitration request with the ICA pursuant to the arbitration clause therein. The ICA rendered an arbitral award on 5 September 2016.

The court held that the arbitral award should be recognized and enforced in accordance with the New York Convention and the CPL.

10. The No. 4419 arbitral award made by the FOSFA was recognized and enforced 

Catchwords: due process (proper notice, service of process) - irregular procedure (composition of the arbitral authority) – public policy (GM food)

The case of Beiliang (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd.’s application for recognition and enforcement of the No. 4419 arbitral award made by the FOSFA, against the respondent, Rizhao Xingyujia Trade Co., Ltd. (Case No. [2016] Lu 11 Xie Wai Ren No. 1 ([2016] 鲁11协外认1号)).

The case was registered by Rizhao Intermediate People's Court of Shandong Province on 20 January 2016, and a ruling was rendered on 9 January 2018, approving the application for recognition and enforcement of the said FOSFA arbitral award.

The applicant and the respondent signed a sales contract, and a dispute arose because the respondent did not open the letter of credit within the agreed period. On 17 September 2014, the applicant initiated an arbitration at the FOSFA. On 23 June 2015, FOSFA made an arbitral award.

The respondent suggested that since the goods exported by the applicant to China under the sales contract were genetically modified soybeans, the sale of the goods to China did not comply with Chinese laws and regulations on genetically modified products. Thus recognition of the said arbitral award was against China's public policy. The court held that, however, because the arbitral award was made on the scope that the applicant paid money to the respondent, recognition of such arbitral award would not lead to a violation of China's public policy.

The court held that the arbitral award should be recognized and enforced in accordance with the New York Convention, the CPL and applicable judicial interpretations.

11. The No. 252/2016 arbitral award made by the ICAC was recognized and enforced

Catchwords: arbitration agreement – due process (proper notice, opportunity to present its case)

The case of VALF-RUS, Limited Liability Company’s application for recognition and enforcement of the No. 252/2016 arbitral award made by the ICAC in Russia, against the respondent, Zhejiang Taizhou Huangyan Jingzheng Mould Co., Ltd (Case No. [2018] Zhe 10 Xie Wai Ren No. 1 ([2018] 浙10协外认1号)).

The case was registered by Taizhou Intermediate People's Court of Zhejiang Province on 5 February 2018, and a ruling was rendered on 4 April 2018, approving the application for recognition and enforcement of the said ICAC arbitral award.

The applicant and the respondent signed a contract of international goods sales. However, the parties had disputes during the performance thereof and the applicant therefore filed an arbitration request with the ICAC on 27 December 2016. The ICAC rendered an arbitral award on 3 August 2017.

The court held that the arbitral award should be recognized and enforced under the New York Convention, the China-Russia bilateral treaties and the CPL.

12. The No. CAS2014/0/3791 arbitral award made by the CAS was recognized and enforced

Catchwords: arbitration agreement – due process (service of process)

The case of Juan de Dios Crespo Perez and Alfonso Vargas ’s application for recognition and enforcement of the No. CAS2014/0/3791 arbitral award made by the CAS, against the respondent, Dalian Yifang Football Club Co., Ltd. (Case No. [2017] Liao 02 Min Chu No. 583 ([2017] 辽02民初583号)).

The case was registered by Dalian Intermediate People's Court of Liaoning Province on 15 September 2017, and a ruling was rendered on 1 August 2018, approving the application for recognition and enforcement of the said CAS arbitral award.

The Argentine football player, Gustavo Javier Canales, sued the respondent before the FIFA. To this end, the respondent entrusted two applicants as its agents to act on behalf itself before the FIFA, and two applicants and the respondent entered into a legal service agreement on the matter. Thereafter, disputes arose between the parties because the respondent did not pay legal services fees pursuant to the agreement. On 24 October 2014, two applicants filed an arbitration request with the CAS. On 17 September 2015, the CAS made an arbitral award in Switzerland.

The court held that the arbitral award should be recognized and enforced in accordance with the New York Convention, the CPL and applicable judicial interpretations.

13. The No. 15113-0022 arbitral award made by the KCAB was recognized and enforced

Catchwords: due process (proper notice) – public policy (foreign exchange control)

The case of ACUON Capital’s application for recognition and enforcement of the No. 15113-0022 arbitral award made by the KCAB, against the respondent, A Tian and B Tian (Case No. [2018] Ji 24 Xie Wai Ren No. 163 ([2018] 吉24协外认163号)).

The case was registered by Intermediate People's Court of Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture, Jilin Province on 22 May 2017, and a ruling was rendered on 15 November 2018, approving the application for recognition and enforcement of the said KCAB arbitral award.

The applicant as the lender entered into a loan contract with the relevant company and the two respondents acted as guarantors. Afterwards, the parties thereto had disputes over the debt. The applicant filed an arbitration request with the KCAB, which made an arbitral award on 4 August 2016.

Respondents argued that in accordance with relevant rules of China's foreign exchange administration, if the respondents, Chinese citizens, provided the guarantee to offshore companies, the applicant and the respondents must go to the foreign exchange administration bureau to apply for offshore guarantee approval and go through the registration procedures. However, in this case, the parties did not obtain the approval and go through such registration formalities. Therefore, respondents believed that according to Chinese laws, the offshore guarantee contract entered between the applicant and the respondents was invalid. Accordingly, recognizing or enforcing the arbitral award made by the KCAB based on the guarantee contract would violate China's public policy.

However, the court held that there was no violation of public policy. The court stated that none of the grounds for refusal under Article V of the New York Convention existed in this case, where the KCAB conducted an arbitration pursuant to the applicable law as stipulated in the contract, i.e., the South Korean laws.

The court held that the arbitral award should be recognized and enforced under the New York Convention, the bilateral treaty between China and South Korea, and the CPL.

14. Two arbitral awards, made by 3 arbitrators respectively on 6 January 2014 and 3 October 2014, were recognized and enforced

Catchwords: ad hoc arbitration

The case of Maspal Investment Corporation ’s application for recognition and enforcement of the two arbitral awards made by three arbitrators, namely Michael Baker-Harber, Ian Kinnell and Christopher John William Moss, on 6 January 2014 and 3 October 2014, against the respondents, East Sunrise(Group) Co, Limited and Taizhou Star Limited. (Case No. [2016] Zhe 72 Xie Wai Ren No. 5 ([2016]浙72协外认5号) and Case No. [2016] Zhe 72 Xie Wai Ren No. 5 ([2016]浙72协外认5号) ) .

The applicant and the two respondents had a dispute over a vessel sales contract. The three arbitrators made an arbitral award concerned with the payment on 6 January 2014, and made a second arbitral award on 3 October 2014, with regard to the damages.

Ningbo Maritime Court registered the case on 22 September 2016, and made two rulings on 20 March 2018 to recognize and enforce the two arbitral awards.

The court held that the arbitral awards should be recognized and enforced in accordance with the New York Convention, the CPL and applicable judicial interpretations.

15. The application for recognition and enforcement of the No. 113 arbitral award made by the SIAC in 2017 was transferred by the court concerned to another competent court

Catchwords: jurisdiction (competent court- transferred jurisdiction)

The case of Xinsha International Co., Ltd.’s application for recognition and enforcement of the No. 113 arbitral award made by the SIAC, against the respondent, Yingkou National Import &Export Co., Ltd. (Case No. [2018] Liao 02 Xie Wai Ren No. 9 ([2018]辽02协外认9号)).

The applicant and the respondent had disputes over a contract of international goods sales and the applicant therefore filed an arbitration request with the SIAC. The SIAC rendered an arbitral award on 12 October 2017.

The Dalian Intermediate People's Court of Liaoning Province registered the case on 25 May 2018. Thereafter, the applicant filed a request for withdrawal of the application with the court on 20 June 2018, and the court allowed the withdrawal of the application.

Afterwards, the applicant filed an application with the court again, and the court registered the case on 10 September 2018 a second time (Case No. [2018] Liao 02 AXie Wai Ren No. 17 ([2018] 辽02协外认17号)).

The court held that the applicant should apply to the intermediate people's court where the respondent's domicile or property is located. The respondent’s domicile is not within the jurisdiction of the court, and the applicant has not provided any proof indicating that the property of the respondent is in the jurisdiction of the court. Therefore, the court held that the respondent's domicile was located in the jurisdiction of the Yingkou Intermediate People's Court of Liaoning Province (“Yingkou Court”). Accordingly, the court made a ruling on 5 November 2018, transferring the case to Yingkou Court. At present, we have not found Yingkou Court’s decision on this case yet.

16. After the No. 4437 and No. 4438 arbitral awards made by the FOSFA were applied for recognition and enforcement, the applicants withdrew the two applications.

Catchwords: case withdrawn

The cases of Admasia-Pacific trading Pte.Ltd’s application for recognition and enforcement of the two arbitral awards made by the FOSFA, against the respondent, Rizhao Xingyujia Trade Co., Ltd. (these two cases are respectively the case of “ [2016] Lu 11 Xie Wai Ren No. 4” ([2016] 鲁11协外认4号) and the case of “ [2016] Lu 11 Xie Wai Ren No. 5” ([2016] 鲁11协外认5号)) .

The case was registered by Rizhao Intermediate People's Court of Shandong Province on 23 August 2016. Thereafter, on the grounds that the two parties had settled and the applicant received the settlement payment, the applicant filed a request to withdraw the two applications on 11 June 2018. The court ruled on the same day, allowing the withdrawal of applications.

17. After the No. 4476 and No. 4439 arbitral awards made by FOSFA were applied for recognition and enforcement, the applicants withdrew the two applications.

Catchwords: case withdrawn

The cases of Columbia Grain Trading Inc.’s application for recognition and enforcement of the two arbitral awards made by the FOSFA, against the respondent, Rizhao Xingyujia Trade Co., Ltd. (these two cases are respectively the case of “ [2017] Lu 11 Xie Wai Ren No. 6” ([2017] 鲁11协外认6号) and the case of “ [2017] Lu 11 Xie Wai Ren No. 7” ([2017] 鲁11协外认7号)).

The case was registered by Rizhao Intermediate People's Court of Shandong Province on 20 October 2017. Thereafter, on the grounds that the two parties had settled and the applicant had received the settlement payment, the applicant filed a request to withdraw the two applications on 20 September 2018. The court ruled on the same day that the applications were withdrawn.

18. After the No. A01/2013/36 arbitral awards made by the ICA was applied for recognition and enforcement, the applicant withdrew the application.

Catchwords: case withdrawn

The cases of Omnicotton, Inc’s application for recognition and enforcement of the No. A01/2013/36 arbitral award made by the ICA, against the respondent, Shandong Yanggu Shunda Textile Co., Ltd. (Case No. [2015] Liao Min Wu Chu Zi No. 6 ([2015]聊民五初字第6号)).

Liaocheng Intermediate People's Court of Shandong Province registered the case. Thereafter, Omnicotton filed a request for withdrawal of the application on 13 July 2018, on the grounds that the two parties had entered into a settlement agreement. The court ruled on 13 August 2018 that the application was withdrawn.

19. After the No. 19980/MCP/DDA arbitral award made by the ICC was applied for recognition and enforcement, the applicant withdrew the application.

Catchwords: case withdrawn

The cases of Kahale Technical Group LLC (Kahale)’s application for recognition and enforcement of the No. 19980/MCP/DDA arbitral award made by the ICC, against the respondent, Shandong Electric Power Construction Corporation III (Case No. [2017] Lu 02 Xie Wai Ren No. 6 ([2017]鲁02协外认6号)).

Qingdao Intermediate People's Court of Shandong Province registered the case on 14 September 2017. Thereafter, Kahale filed a request for withdrawal of the application on 27 June 2018. The court ruled on the same day that the application was withdrawn.

20. After the arbitral award made by an unknown arbitrator was applied for recognition and enforcement, the applicant withdrew the application.

Catchwords: case withdrawn

The cases of Plama Investment’s application for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award, against the respondent, Shanghai Chaori International Trade Co., Ltd. (Case No. [2017] Hu 01 Xie Wai Ren No.2([2017]沪01协外认2号)).

Shanghai First Intermediate People's Court registered the case on 5 June 2018. Thereafter, the applicant filed a request for withdrawal of the application on 31 January 2018, and the court ruled on 6 February 2018 that the application was withdrawn. At present, the name of the involved foreign arbitration institution is not yet known.

21. After the arbitral award made by an unknown arbitrator was applied for recognition and enforcement, the applicant withdrew the application.

Catchwords: case withdrawn

The cases of Olam International Limited’s application for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award, against the respondent, Zhengzhou Chaoge Spinning Co., Ltd. (Case No. [2018] Yu 01 Xie Wai Ren No.2 ([2018]豫01协外认2号)).

Zhengzhou Intermediate People's Court of Henan Province registered the case on 3 February 2017. Afterwards, Olam didn’t pay the litigation fees within the time limit specified by the court and applied for withdrawal of the application. The court ruled on 14 June 2018 that the application was withdrawn. At present, the name of the involved foreign arbitration institution is not yet known.


For more information on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in China, please feel free to download our CJO newsletter vol.2 no. 1.



If you would like to discuss with us about the post, or share your views and suggestions, please contact Ms. Meng Yu (meng.yu@chinajusticeobserver.com). If you would like to acquire the full text of these decisions, please also contact Ms. Meng Yu.

If you need legal services for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards in China, please contact Mr. Guodong Du (guodong.du@chinajusticeobserver.com ). Du and his team of experienced attorneys will be able to assist you.

If you wish to receive news and gain deep insights into the Chinese judicial system, please feel free to subscribe to our newsletters (subscribe.chinajusticeobserver.com ).

Yuan Yanchao also contributes to the post.

Tag: Recognizing and Enforcing Foreign Arbitrial Awards in China, Arbitration in China, ICC International Court of Arbitration in China, SIAC in China, ICA in China, LMAA in China, FOSFA in China, KCAB in China, ICAC in China, ad hoc arbitration