The High Court denied the defendant’s application to set aside the order of the Assistant Registrar, which had granted enforcement of an award rendered in Beijing. The Court held that, contrary to the defendant’s contentions, (i) the tribunal had not exceeded its jurisdiction, and (ii) enforcement would not be contrary to public policy. In this respect, the Court rejected the claim that the award had been procured through procedural fraud, because the claimant had allegedly maintained inconsistent evidential positions before the arbitral tribunal and in the subsequent (unsuccessful) annulment proceedings in the Chinese courts.