In most cases, Chinese courts do not support the defendant's motion to dismiss on FNC grounds, but tend to exercise jurisdiction over relevant cases. The case of Singapore Chi Cheng Pte. Ltd. et al. v. SinCo Technologies Pte. Ltd. is a classic example of the judicial practice in China.
Conflict of Laws in China / Private International Law in China
Chinese courts rarely dismiss a case on forum non conveniens (FNC) ground. Grace Young International Ltd. v. Seoil Agency Co. Ltd. is currently one of the only two cases in which the Chinese courts grant an FNC dismissal.
China's Supreme People's Court (SPC) has been pushing all courts across the country to ascertain and apply foreign law as much as possible in the last three years.
China's Supreme People's Court (SPC) is about to issue a significant judicial interpretation, stipulating the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in China. Judge Song Jianli (宋建立) (Judge of the SPC’s 4th Civil Division) introduced the content of the judicial interpretation.
Chinese courts recognized and enforced a U.S. judgment for the second time, indicating that U.S. judgments have begun to be recognized and enforced in China in a normalized way. Any U.S. judgment, whether made by a federal court or a state court, may be recognized and enforced in China.
Chinese courts are going one step further in the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters.
The service procedure is one of the key matters reviewed by Chinese courts in the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. There is no specific stipulation in China, at present, about how to review the procedure of services. Nevertheless, we attempt to learn the practices by Chinese courts from relevant decided cases.
Chinese courts have long been perplexed by the problem of how to accurately ascertain and apply foreign law. There is a tendency to apply the lex fori, i.e., Chinese law, which is familiar to Chinese judges, on the grounds of failure to prove the foreign law, due to the fact that the judges lack convenient means in ascertainment.