The court decisions available on this website interpret and apply the New York Convention. These court decisions are published in the Yearbook Commercial Arbitration since its Volume I (1976).
For instructions on how to search for court decisions per topic and per country in this website, please refer to our helpful access guide here.
Intermediate People’s Court, Jiangsu Province, Wuxi, 30 May 2022, Su 02 Zhi Yi No. 13
(Sunan Ruili Airlines Co., Ltd., Yunnan Jingcheng Group Co., Ltd., and Dong Lecheng v. CLC Aircraft Leasing (Tianjin) Co., Ltd)
The court discusses which awards are considered non-domestic even if rendered in the State of enforcement (international element, lex mercatoria).
The Maritime Court recognized and enforced an award rendered in Singapore in accordance with the Rules of the Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration (SCMA). The arbitral tribunal had awarded interest on a counterclaim, even though the counterclaimant had not claimed it. The Court held that this did not constitute a ground for refusal under Art. V(1)(c) of the New York Convention, because awarding interest was within the tribunal’s power under the SCMA Rules, which provide that the arbitrators may award “simple or compound interest on any sum awarded at such rate or rates and in respect of such period or periods both before and after the date of the Award as the Tribunal considers just”.
Maritime Court, Guangzhou, 17 June 2020, (2020) Yue 72 Xie Wai Ren No. 1
(Emphor FZCO v. Guangdong Yuexin Ocean Engineering Co., Ltd.)
Maritime Court, Xiamen, (2017) Min 72 Xie Wai Ren No. 1, 19 December 2018
(Sea Dolphin Shipping Limited v. Xiamen C&D Agricultural Products Co., Ltd.)
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
China PR 15. Noble Resources International Pte. Ltd. v. Shanghai Xintai International Trade Co. Ltd., Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court, 11 August 2017
China PR 14. Taizhou Haopu Investment Co., Ltd. v. Wicor Holding AG, Intermediate People’s Court of Taizhou, Jiangsu Province, Case No. 00004, 2 June 2016
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
Intermediate People’s Court, Heilongjiang Province, Heihe, 23 December 2015, (2015) Hei Zhong She Wai Shang Cai Zi No. 1, 23
(Krasilnikov Sergei Vitalevich v. Heilongjiang Xinghe Dadao Automobile Trade Co., Ltd.)
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses the general conditions the Convention imposes on a petitioner for seeking recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award – namely, the submission of the original arbitration agreement or arbitral award or a certified copy thereof – and examines in general whether these conditions were complied in the case at issue.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
China PR 13. Siemens International Trade Co. Ltd v. Shanghai Golden Landmark Co. Ltd), First Intermediate People's Court of Shanghai Municipality, (2013) Min Ren (Wai Zhong) Zi No. 2, 27 November 2015
The court discusses the conditions under which a party may be estopped from raising a ground for refusal of enforcement under the Convention or has waived the right to raise it.
The court discusses how to determine whether the document supplied is an award capable of being recognized and enforced, including whether the award is duly authenticated, and whether a copy is duly certified; whether a prior interim and/or partial award should be supplied together with the final award.
The court discusses issues relating to the requirement to supply the original arbitration agreement or a copy thereof to prove the prima facie validity of the arbitration agreement, as well as the application of more favorable municipal laws that do not provide for this requirement.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses other cases of invalidity of the arbitration agreement, including that there was no agreement at all or that the party was not a signatory thereto, that the incorrect arbitral institution was chosen, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
Intermediate People’s Court, Guangdong Province, Zhaoqing, 19 October 2015, (2015) Zhao Zhong Fa Min Yi Zi No.26
(Jacobson Golf Course Design, Inc. v. Sihui Zhenhui Garden Property Development Co., Ltd. et al.)
The court discusses the applicable period of limitation for seeking enforcement of an award.
The court discusses the general conditions the Convention imposes on a petitioner for seeking recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award – namely, the submission of the original arbitration agreement or arbitral award or a certified copy thereof – and examines in general whether these conditions were complied in the case at issue.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses cases in which the subject matter of the award was not arbitrable in the enforcement State on public policy grounds.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
Intermediate People’s Court, Jiangsu Province, Wuxi, 14 January 2015, Xi Shang Wai Zhong Shen Zi No. 9
(Allenberg Cotton Co., Ltd. v. Jiangsu Nijiaxiang Group Co., Ltd.)
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses the law applicable to the validity of the arbitration agreement at the enforcement stage.
China PR 11. Supreme People's Court, 18 December 2014
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses the applicable period of limitation for seeking enforcement of an award.
China PR 12. Schroeder KG (GmbH & Co.) v. Dandong Jun’ao Food Co., Ltd), Supreme People’s Court, (2014) Min Si Ta Zi No. 31, 30 June 2014
The court discusses the conditions under which a party may be estopped from raising a ground for refusal of enforcement under the Convention or has waived the right to raise it.
Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
The Supreme People’s Court instructed the first instance and the appellate courts to grant the application for recognition and enforcement of two awards rendered in Australia (unless they found that other grounds for refusal existed under the 1958 New York Convention), since it disagreed with their conclusion that recognition and enforcement would violate Chinese public policy within the meaning of Art. V(2)(b) of the Convention. While the awards conflicted with a Chinese court decision on the validity of the same arbitration agreement on which the awards were based, the awards had been rendered before the court decision was issued, and the respondent had not objected to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal during the arbitration. Hence, there would be no violation of Chinese judicial sovereignty. The Court further explained that public policy within the meaning of Art. V(2)(b) of the Convention meant the basic principles of Chinese law, national sovereignty, public social safety, good morals, and other fundamental social and public interests. The conflict between the awards and the Chinese court decision did not per se constitute such a violation.
Supreme People’s Court, 10 October 2013, [2013] Min Si Ta Zi No. 46
(Castel Electronics Pty. Ltd. v. TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co., Ltd.)
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
China PR 9. Higher People's Court of Jiangsu, Suzhou, 7 May 2013
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses other cases of invalidity of the arbitration agreement, including that there was no agreement at all or that the party was not a signatory thereto, that the incorrect arbitral institution was chosen, etc.
China PR 10. Intermediate People’s Court, Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou, 6 February 2013
The court discusses the conditions under which a party may be estopped from raising a ground for refusal of enforcement under the Convention or has waived the right to raise it.
China PR 8. Higher People's Court of Guangdong, Shenzhen, 20 November 2012
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses under which conditions non-signatories are covered by an arbitration agreement entered into by another party.
The Supreme People’s Court disagreed with the proposal of the first instance and appellate courts and instructed them to grant enforcement of an LCIA award rendered in respect of a franchise dispute. The Court explained, contrary to the opinion of the lower courts, that, while the parties had not complied with mandatory provisions of Chinese administrative regulations – which required that foreign companies such as the petitioner establish foreign-funded enterprises in order to engage in the franchising business in PR China, and register them with the competent administrative authorities – this violation did not constitute a violation of public policy within the meaning of Art. V(2)(b) of the 1958 New York Convention. The Court further held that the possible inconsistency between the award and the outcome of a pending court action in respect of a related agreement was not one of the grounds for refusal of enforcement listed in Art. V of the Convention.
Supreme People’s Court, 18 May 2010, [2010] Min Si Ta Zi No. 18
(Tianrui Hotel Investment Co., Ltd v. Hangzhou Yiju Hotel Management Co., Ltd.)
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
In accordance with the instructions of the Supreme People’s Court (CHINA PR 34), the Intermediate People’s Court granted recognition and enforcement of an SCC Award which had denied the substantive claims of the present respondent (the claimant in the arbitration) and ordered it to pay the present petitioner’s arbitration costs. The Court held: (1) The contract between the parties and the arbitration clause therein were not invalid because the respondent had not been authorized to conclude foreign trade contracts. For precisely this reason, the respondent was indicated in the contract as the end user and not as the buyer. Further, the respondent had confirmed the validity of the arbitration clause by commencing the SCC arbitration. (2) The arbitral tribunal had the power to decide on the costs of the arbitration both under a contractual provision stating that the arbitration costs would be borne by the losing party, and under the SCC Rules. It was unnecessary that the request for costs under the Rules be made in the form of a counterclaim. (3) A claim that the petitioner had bribed a witness and stolen evidence was unproven. (4) The contention that the respondent had been unable to present its case in respect of the environmental and health damage caused by the equipment because an on-site inspection ordered by the tribunal had not been carried out was contradicted by the award, which stated that the inspection had taken place; also, the equipment at issue was installed on the premises of the respondent, which could easily have conducted an inspection. (5) The award contained sufficient reasons for its conclusions and bore the signatures of all arbitrators. (6) Recognition and enforcement of the award would not violate Chinese public policy. While the equipment undisputedly caused environmental pollution and potential health damages, this could be due to various reasons. The respondent had chosen to commence arbitration in respect of the equipment’s quality – a dispute covered by the valid arbitration clause in the parties’ contract; hence, the respondent had to comply with the outcome of that arbitration. Also, an allegation that the merits of the award were unfair did not constitute per se a violation of the fundamental interests of Chinese society, general principles of law, or good morals.
First Intermediate People’s Court, Shanghai, 18 June 2009, (2007) Hu Yi Zhong Min Wu (Shang) Chu Zi No. 116
(GRD Minproc Ltd. v. Shanghai Feilun Industrial Co. Ltd.)
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the consequences of the lack of reasons in the award on its recognition and enforcement.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
China PR 7. Higher People's Court of Zhejiang, Ningbo, 22 April 2009
The court discusses which awards are considered non-domestic even if rendered in the State of enforcement (international element, lex mercatoria).
The court discusses the conditions under which a party may be estopped from raising a ground for refusal of enforcement under the Convention or has waived the right to raise it.
Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
The Supreme People’s Court instructed the appellate court not to deny enforcement of an SCC award on public policy grounds. The award had denied the substantive claims of the present respondent in respect of defects of purchased equipment, which had caused pollution and potential health damage, and had directed the respondent to pay the costs incurred by the present petitioner in the arbitration. The Court explained that, while there could be multiple reasons for the equipment’s malfunctioning, the respondent had chosen to commence arbitration in respect of its quality – a dispute covered by the valid arbitration clause in the parties’ contract; hence, the respondent had to comply with the outcome of that arbitration. The Court found that though the merits of the award were alleged to be unfair, this did not constitute a violation of the fundamental interests of Chinese society, general principles of law, or good morals. (See PR China no. 35 for a later decision in this case.)
Supreme People’s Court, 13 March 2009, [2008] Min Si Ta Zi No. 48
(GRD Minproc Ltd. v. Shanghai Feilun Industrial Co. Ltd.)
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
China PR 5. Intermediate People's Court of Shangdong Province, Jinan, 27 June 2008
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
China PR 6. Higher People's Court, Fujian Province, 12 October 2007 and Supreme People's Court, 27 February 2008
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
The Supreme People’s Court denied the proposal of the first instance court and the appellate court to deny the application for the enforcement of an SCC award on grounds of public policy. The Court held that the contravention of mandatory Chinese law requiring approval and registration of foreign debts did not per se constitute a violation of Chinese public policy within the meaning of Art. V(2)(b) of the 1958 New York Convention.
Supreme People’s Court, 13 July 2005, [2001] Min Si Ta Zi No. 12
(Mitsui & Co. Corporation v. Hainan Textile Industry General Corporation)
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
China PR 4. Supreme People's Court, 5 July 2004
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
The court discusses the applicable period of limitation for seeking enforcement of an award.
The court discusses the general conditions the Convention imposes on a petitioner for seeking recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award – namely, the submission of the original arbitration agreement or arbitral award or a certified copy thereof – and examines in general whether these conditions were complied in the case at issue.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
Public policy: The court discusses alleged violations of a fundamental rule of due process in the arbitration on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, including the failure to communicate the names of the arbitrators, the failure to send copies of reports or letters filed in the arbitration, etc.
China PR 3. Supreme People's Court, 12 November 2003
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
The Supreme People’s Court instructed the lower court to deny recognition and enforcement of a foreign award under Art. V(1)(a) of the 1958 New York Convention, because under the applicable lex personalis, Chinese law, the person who had signed the contract and the arbitration agreement had not had the power to represent the respondent. Also, the company’s seal had not been affixed, the signatory’s conduct had been explicitly disavowed by the respondent, and there was no previous practice that could justify a finding of apparent authority.
Supreme People’s Court, 19 April 2001, [2001] Min Si Ta Zi No. 2
(Glencore Co., Ltd. v. Chongqing Machinery Importing & Exporting Co.)
China PR 2. Beijing First Intermediate People's Court, 17 November 1997
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
The court discusses aspects relating to the implementation of the Convention in a Contracting State: the self-executing nature of the Convention v. the requirement of implementing legislation; the lack of implementing legislation; legislation that diverges from the text of the Convention or is defective under national law. Also, the domestic requirement that a State be included in an official list (“gazetted”) to ascertain reciprocity.
China PR 1. Guangzhou Maritime Court, 17 October 1990
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
The court discusses aspects relating to the implementation of the Convention in a Contracting State: the self-executing nature of the Convention v. the requirement of implementing legislation; the lack of implementing legislation; legislation that diverges from the text of the Convention or is defective under national law. Also, the domestic requirement that a State be included in an official list (“gazetted”) to ascertain reciprocity.
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses the applicable period of limitation for seeking enforcement of an award.
Public policy: The court discusses cases in which the subject matter of the award was not arbitrable in the enforcement State on public policy grounds.