The Court denied the defendant’s application to set aside the order enforcing an award rendered in PR China. It found, first, that the record proved that the arbitrators had not exceeded their authority, as it appeared that they had found the defendant to be liable under the loan agreement on which the arbitration claimant relied, and not – as alleged – on other agreements between the parties. Second, the Court dismissed the claim that enforcement would be contrary to public policy – meaning the basic notions of morality and justice – because the award had been obtained by (procedural) fraud. The defendant’s contention that the claimant had maintained inconsistent evidential positions before the arbitral tribunal and in subsequent proceedings in the courts of PR China (including failed attempts to have the award set aside) was not supported by the evidence. Last, the Court held that the defendant’s claim that the award should not be enforced because it had been satisfied – through attachment in PR China – was not a recognized ground under Sect. 31 of the International Arbitration Act, which mirrors Art. V of the New York Convention and provides an exhaustive list of grounds for refusal of enforcement.