![China / 09 May 2007 / China, 中华人民共和国最高人民法院 (Supreme People’s Court) / Bunge S.A. of Geneva Switzerland v. Shenzhen Light Industrial Products Bonded Trade Co. / [2006] 民四他字第47号 / [2006] MinSiTaZi No. 47](./images/case-law.png)
China / 09 May 2007 / China, 中华人民共和国最高人民法院 (Supreme People’s Court) / Bunge S.A. of Geneva Switzerland v. Shenzhen Light Industrial Products Bonded Trade Co. / [2006] 民四他字第47号 / [2006] MinSiTaZi No. 47
| Country | China |
| Court | China, 中华人民共和国最高人民法院 (Supreme People’s Court) |
| Date | 09 May 2007 |
| Parties | Bunge S.A. of Geneva Switzerland v. Shenzhen Light Industrial Products Bonded Trade Co. |
| Case number | [2006] 民四他字第47号 / [2006] MinSiTaZi No. 47 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | IV | IV(1)(b) |
| Source |
Guide on Foreign-related Commercial and Maritime Trial, pp. 112-123 (People's Court Press, Vol. 1, 2007) |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | On 6 May 2003, Bunge S.A. of Geneva Switzerland (“Bunge”) and Shenzhen Light Industrial Products Bonded Trade Co. (“Shenzhen Light”) entered into a contract of affreightment in which Shenzhen Light was to deliver goods from China to Brazil. The parties’ agreement provided that any disputes were to be submitted to arbitration in London applying English law before three arbitrators from the shipping industry. Each party was to appoint one arbitrator and the third was to be appointed jointly by the two party-appointed arbitrators. A dispute arose between the parties and arbitration was initiated. Bunge appointed an arbitrator but Shenzhen Light refused to appoint one. In accordance with English law, Bunge’s party-appointed arbitrator became the sole arbitrator in the dispute. On 25 November 2004, an award was rendered in favour of Bunge, who then applied for recognition and enforcement before the Guangzhou Maritime Court (广州海事法院). Shenzhen Light challenged the application on the grounds that (i) Bunge had not authenticated the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof in accordance with Article IV(1)(b) NYC, (ii) it did not receive proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator, (iii) the composition of the arbitral tribunal, including its number, qualification and seat was contrary to the arbitration agreement and (iv) the application for enforcement exceeded the required time limit under Chinese law. The Guangzhou Maritime Court opined that the award should be recognised but not enforced. In particular, the court dismissed three of Shenzhen Light’s objections, including its argument that the award should be refused recognition and enforcement under Article IV(1)(b) NYC, but sustained its challenge that the filing of the application for enforcement had exceeded the six-month time limit under Chinese law. The court reported its opinion to the Guangdong Higher People’s Court (广东省高级人民法院) for review. The Guangdong Higher People’s Court confirmed that the arbitral award should be recognised but not enforced. In particular, the court sustained Shenzhen Light’s objection that the application for enforcement had exceeded the six-month time limit under Chinese law. The Guangdong Higher People’s Court reported its opinion to the Supreme People’s Court (最高人民法院) for review in accordance with the Notice of the Supreme People's Court on the Adjudication of the Relevant Issues About Foreign-related Arbitration and Foreign Arbitral Matters by the People’s Court. The Supreme People’s Court confirmed that the arbitral award should be recognised. As for the enforcement of the award, the court found, with reference to Article IV NYC, that the determination of whether an application for enforcement was filed within the required six-month time limit under Chinese law was calculated from the time the applicant received the duly authenticated original award or duly certified copy thereof. The court directed the Guangdong Higher People’s Court to identify the relevant date and make a decision on the timeliness of the application for enforcement on that basis according to Chinese law. |
