![China / 27 February 2008 / China, 中华人民共和国最高人民法院 (Supreme People’s Court) / First Investment Corp. (Marshall Island) v. Fujian Mawei Shipbuilding Corp., Fujian Shipbuilding Corp. / [2007] 民四他字第35号 / [2007] MinSiTaZi No. 35](./images/case-law.png)
China / 27 February 2008 / China, 中华人民共和国最高人民法院 (Supreme People’s Court) / First Investment Corp. (Marshall Island) v. Fujian Mawei Shipbuilding Corp., Fujian Shipbuilding Corp. / [2007] 民四他字第35号 / [2007] MinSiTaZi No. 35
| Country | China |
| Court | China, 中华人民共和国最高人民法院 (Supreme People’s Court) |
| Date | 27 February 2008 |
| Parties | First Investment Corp. (Marshall Island) v. Fujian Mawei Shipbuilding Corp., Fujian Shipbuilding Corp. |
| Case number | [2007] 民四他字第35号 / [2007] MinSiTaZi No. 35 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | V | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | On 15 September 2003, First Investment Corp. (Marshall Island) (“FIC”) and Fujian Mawei Shipbuilding Corp., Fujian Shipbuilding Corp. (“Fujian Mawei”) entered into an option agreement. Under the option agreement, FIC nominated eight other companies as signatories to a ship construction option agreement with Fujian Mawei. The original option agreement provided that any dispute would be submitted to arbitration in London. A dispute arose between the parties and an ad hoc arbitration was initiated under the original option agreement in London. An arbitral award was rendered in favour of FIC, who then applied for recognition and enforcement before the Xiamen Maritime Court (厦门海事法院). The Xiamen Maritime Court opined that the award should not be recognised or enforced. The court reported its opinion to the Fujian Higher People’s Court (福建省高级人民法院) for review. The Fujian Higher People’s Court confirmed that the arbitral award should not be recognised or enforced. In particular, the court found that (i) the composition of the arbitral tribunal was not in accordance with the parties’ arbitration agreement and the law of the seat of arbitration under Article V(1)(d) NYC, (ii) the arbitral award contained decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration under the arbitration clause in the original option agreement in accordance with Article V(1)(c) NYC since matters concerning the eight nominated companies was considered even though these companies were not parties to the option agreement, (iii) Fujian Mawei was not permitted to properly defend itself in the arbitration proceedings in accordance with Article V(1)(b) NYC and (iv) the arbitral tribunal permitted FIC to submit “without prejudice” documents into the proceeding contrary to the law of the seat – i.e., English law – under Article V(1)(d) NYC. The Fujian 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 not be recognised or enforced. In particular, the court found, with reference to Article V(1)(d) NYC, that the composition of the arbitral tribunal and arbitration procedure was not in accordance with the parties’ arbitration agreement as well as the law of the seat – i.e., English law. |
Attachment (1)
 Original Pending Adobe Acrobat PDF |
