![China / 13 March 2009 / China, 中华人民共和国最高人民法院 (Supreme People’s Court) / GRD Minproc Limited v. Shanghai Feilun Industrial Co., / [2008] Min Si Ta Zi No. 48 ([2008] 民四他字第2号)](./images/case-law.png)
China / 13 March 2009 / China, 中华人民共和国最高人民法院 (Supreme People’s Court) / GRD Minproc Limited v. Shanghai Feilun Industrial Co., / [2008] Min Si Ta Zi No. 48 ([2008] 民四他字第2号)
| Country | China |
| Court | China, 中华人民共和国最高人民法院 (Supreme People’s Court) |
| Date | 13 March 2009 |
| Parties | GRD Minproc Limited v. Shanghai Feilun Industrial Co., |
| Case number | [2008] Min Si Ta Zi No. 48 ([2008] 民四他字第2号) |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | V | V(2)(b) |
| Source |
Guide on Foreign-related Commercial and Maritime Trial, pp. 135-142 (People’s Court Press, Vol. 1, 2009) |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | On 24 July 1994, Shanghai Foreign Trade Corporation, Warman International Co., Ltd. (“Warman”) and Shanghai Feilun Industrial Co., Ltd. (“Feilun”) entered into an agreement for the sale and purchase of equipment and material used for battery recycling. The parties’ agreement included an arbitration clause where any dispute arising from the performance of or relevant to the contract would be resolved by arbitration under the auspices of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (“SCC”), failing amicable negotiations. On 30 April 1995, GRD Minproc Limited (“GRD”) replaced Warman in the parties’ agreement. A dispute arose between the parties regarding the equipment’s effectiveness and Feilun filed an arbitration with the SCC on 21 January 2003. A final award was rendered in favour of GRD on 20 November 2006 dismissing Feilun’s claim and awarding costs to GRD. GRD then applied to the Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court for recognition and enforcement of the award. Feilun opposed the application on the basis that (i) the arbitration agreement was invalid, (ii) the award was against China’s public order, (iii) GRD had bribed and stolen evidence, which violated Chinese public policy, (iv) GRD never submitted a counter-claim in respect of costs and as such the award dealt with a dispute beyond the arbitration claims, (v) the arbitral tribunal never conducted on-site inspections as indicated and (vi) the award never indicated the reasoning of the decision and did not demonstrate that the unsigned arbitrator participated in the decision. The Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court held that the award should not be recognised or enforced. In particular, the court decided that the award contradicted the public interests of China under Article V(2)(b) NYC because it concerned equipment that was contrary to Chinese occupational health and safety regulations. The Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court reported its opinion to the Shanghai Higher People’s Court for review. The Shanghai Higher People’s Court opined that the award should not be recognised or enforced under Article V(2) NYC since the award was contrary to Chinese public interest. The Shanghai Higher People’s Court reported its opinion 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 opined that the award should be recognised and enforced. In particular, the court decided that whether an arbitral award was fair and just on the merits is not the standard by which an award is deemed to have violated China’s public policy for purposes of recognition and enforcement under Article V(2)(b) NYC. In addition, the court found no other grounds for refusal under Article V NYC. |
| see also : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
