- You are here:
- Home
- Court Decisions
- CHINA PR 48
CHINA PR 48
Intermediate People’s Court, Jiangsu Province, Nanjing, 15 July 2019, (2018) Su 01 XieWai Ren No. 8, Guiding Case No. 200
(Svensk Honungsförädling AB v. Nanjing Changli Bee ... Read more
Intermediate People’s Court, Jiangsu Province, Nanjing, 15 July 2019, (2018) Su 01 XieWai Ren No. 8, Guiding Case No. 200
(Svensk Honungsförädling AB v. Nanjing Changli Bee Product Co., Ltd.)
CHINA PR 48
The Court granted recognition and enforcement of an award rendered by an ad hoc arbitral tribunal in Sweden. The defendant claimed that the wording of the arbitration clause in the parties’ contract – that “disputes should be settled by expedited arbitration in Sweden” – did not allow for the use of ad hoc arbitration and that, as a consequence, exequatur should be refused under the New York Convention because the arbitration proceedings had not been in accordance with the agreement of the parties. The Court held that the parties’ agreement on expedited arbitration did not exclude ad hoc arbitration, which is a relatively more efficient, convenient, and cost-effective compared to institutional arbitration, as is expedited arbitration compared to normal arbitration.
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 relevance and determination of the commercial nature of the relationship underlying the award, including in the context of contractual and non-contractual relations.
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 overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.