- You are here:
- Home
- Court Decisions
- CHINA PR 59
CHINA PR 59
First Intermediate People’s Court, Shanghai, 11 July 2023, Docket No. (2023) Hu 01 Xie Wai Ren No. 1
(XX Company 2 (XX Private Limited) [formerly XX Centre Private Limited (XX Private Limited)] ... Read more
First Intermediate People’s Court, Shanghai, 11 July 2023, Docket No. (2023) Hu 01 Xie Wai Ren No. 1
(XX Company 2 (XX Private Limited) [formerly XX Centre Private Limited (XX Private Limited)] v. XX Company 1)
CHINA PR 59
In a SIAC arbitration case, the tribunal had rendered a Final Award Save as to Costs in favor of the present respondent and a Final Award on Costs in which it had ordered both parties to compensate part of the other party’s costs. The present plaintiff sought recognition of both awards, but only sought enforcement of the part of the Final Award on Costs in its favor. The Court reasoned that the two awards constituted a whole deciding the parties’ dispute and should be recognized and enforced together; also, the Final Award on Costs included relief in favor of both parties, and should be enforced in its entirety. The Court dismissed all other objections to recognition and enforcement raised by the respondent.
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 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 consequences of the apparent or actual bias of an arbitrator on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award.