|
Summary
|
On 20 December 2001, Lifu Candy (Shanghai) Corporation, Shanghai Lianfu Foodstuff Corporation and a third company named Huang Hanguang entered into an agreement for the purchase of assets from Lifu Candy (Shanghai) Corporation and its candy business. The parties’ agreement provided that any dispute arising out of the agreement would be submitted to the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) for arbitration and Chinese law would apply. A dispute arose between Lifu Candy (Shanghai) Corporation and Shanghai Lianfu Foodstuff Corporation regarding the balance of payment owed to Lifu Candy (Shanghai) Corporation by Shanghai Lianfu Foodstuff Corporation. Lifu Candy (Shanghai) Corporation filed an arbitration on 25 April 2006 under the auspices of SIAC. On 12 September 2007, an award was rendered in favour of Lifu Candy (Shanghai) Corporation, who then applied for recognition and enforcement of the award with the Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People's Court (上海市第二中级人民法院) . Shanghai Lianfu Foodstuff Corporation opposed the application on the basis that the arbitration agreement was invalid because it provided for arbitration before a foreign arbitration tribunal when in reality only Chinese parties were involved. It contended there was no foreign element involved in the parties' agreement. In particular, since Huang Hanguang, a Malaysian company, was merely an intermediary and essentially only Lifu Candy (Shanghai) Corporation and Shanghai Lianfu Foodstuff Corporation, two Chinese companies, were the parties to the agreement. Shanghai Lianfu Foodstuff Corporation argued that the People's Court should declare the arbitration agreement null and void where Chinese parties submit a non-foreign-related dispute to a foreign arbitration tribunal pursuant to Article 10 of Certain Provisions Regarding the Handling by the People's Courts of Cases Involving Foreign-Related Arbitrations and Foreign Arbitrations (Draft for Comment). Accordingly, Shanghai Lianfu Foodstuff Corporation alleged violations of Articles V(1)(a) and V(2)(b) of the NYC.
The Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People's Court opined that the award should be recognised and enforced. In particular, the court opined that there were no grounds for refusal under Article V NYC. The court further opined that even though Huang Hanguang was not entitled to any rights or obligations after the execution of the parties' agreement, it was a signatory to the agreement and was listed as a party to the arbitration proceeding. As such, the court opined that a foreign element had been established in the parties' agreement and that the agreement was an expression of genuine consent for arbitration among the parties and thus the arbitration agreement was valid and binding upon all the parties.
|
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your searchChina / 24 June 2009 / China, 上海市第二中级人民法院 (Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court) / Lifu Candy (Shanghai) Corporation v. Shanghai Lianfu Foodstuff Corporation / (2008) Hu Er Zhong Min Wu (Shang) Chu Zi No. 19 ((2008) 沪二中民五（商）初字第19号)
