China, 四川省高级人民法院 (Sichuan High People’s Court)
Concepts :
|
Available documents (1)
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
China / 12 December 2003 / China, 四川省高级人民法院 (Sichuan High People’s Court) / TH&T International Corp. v. Chengdu Hualong Auto Parts Co., Ltd. / [2002] 成民初字第531号 / [2002] ChengMinChuZi No. 531
Country China Court China, 四川省高级人民法院 (Sichuan High People’s Court) Date 12 December 2003 Parties TH&T International Corp. v. Chengdu Hualong Auto Parts Co., Ltd. Case number [2002] 成民初字第531号 / [2002] ChengMinChuZi No. 531 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1)(b) | V(1)(d) Languages English Summary On 3 June 1993, TH&T International Corp. (“TH&T”) and Chengdu Longhua Auto Parts Co., Ltd. (“Longhua”) entered into an agreement under which TH&T authorised Longhua to produce certain auto parts and hold exclusive distribution rights for North America. Longhua breached both terms of the agreement and TH&T initiated arbitration with the International Chamber of Commerce ("ICC") on 13 April 1999. In March 2002, an award was rendered in favour of TH&T who then applied for recognition and enforcement before the Sichuan Higher People’s Court (四川省高级人民法院). The Sichuan Higher People’s Court accepted the application for consideration on 31 July 2003. Longua objected to the application for recognition and enforcement on two grounds: (i) it did not receive proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or the arbitration proceedings in contravention of Article V(1)(d) NYC; and (ii) the dispute should not have been submitted to the ICC and should have been brought before the Zurich Chamber of Commerce (ZCC), which constitutes a basis for refusal under Article V(1)(d) NYC. The Sichuan Higher People’s Court opined that the arbitral award should be recognised and enforced. In particular, the court held that the application for recognition and enforcement had been submitted within the six-month time period as prescribed under Chinese law and dismissed the challenges to recognition and enforcement raised by Longhua. The court found that Longhua had been given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator and the arbitration proceedings in accordance with Article V(1)(b) NYC. In addition, the court held that the dispute had been properly filed with the ICC based on the arbitration clause within the parties’ agreement and the nature of the commercial dispute. Moreover, the court noted that Longhua had not previously objected to the jurisdiction of the ICC even though it had indicated that it would not attend the arbitration proceedings. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1494&opac_view=6 Attachment (2)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Unofficial TranslationAdobe Acrobat PDF