![China / 12 June 2003 / China, 中华人民共和国最高人民法院 (Supreme People’s Court) / Singapore Yideman Asian Co. (Asia) Pte. Ltd. v. Wuxi Huaxin Cocoa Food Corp. / [2001] Min Si Ta Zi No. 43 ([2001]民四他字第43号)](./images/case-law.png)
China / 12 June 2003 / China, 中华人民共和国最高人民法院 (Supreme People’s Court) / Singapore Yideman Asian Co. (Asia) Pte. Ltd. v. Wuxi Huaxin Cocoa Food Corp. / [2001] Min Si Ta Zi No. 43 ([2001]民四他字第43号)
| Country | China |
| Court | China, 中华人民共和国最高人民法院 (Supreme People’s Court) |
| Date | 12 June 2003 |
| Parties | Singapore Yideman Asian Co. (Asia) Pte. Ltd. v. Wuxi Huaxin Cocoa Food Corp. |
| Case number | [2001] Min Si Ta Zi No. 43 ([2001]民四他字第43号) |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | V |
| Source |
Guide Foreign-related Commercial and Maritime Trial, pp. 97-107 (People's Court Press, Vol. 3, 2003). |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | In January 1999, Singapore Yideman Asian Co. (Asia) Pte. Ltd. and Wuxi Huaxin Cocoa Food Corp. entered into negotiations for an agreement for the sale of cocoa from Singapore Yideman Asian Co. (Asia) Pte. Ltd. (Yideman) to Wuxi Huaxin Cocoa Food Corp. (Huaxin). After a number of exchanges, the parties did not reach an agreement in the end. A dispute arose between the parties and Yideman initiated an arbitration under the auspices of the Cocoa Association of London (CAL) against Huaxin. On 13 July 1999, an award was issued in favour of Yideman. Huaxin did not comply with the award and Yideman applied to the Wuxi Intermediate Court for recognition and enforcement of the award. The Wuxi Intermediate Court opined that there was no agreement between the two parties and thus the award should not be recognised or enforced. Pursuant to the Circular of the Supreme People's Court on Issues in the People's Courts' Handling of Foreign-related Arbitrations and Foreign Arbitrations (the Circular), the Wuxi Intermediate Court reported its opinion to the Jiangsu Higher People's Court for review. Before the Jiangsu Higher People's Court, a supplemental hearing was held where Huaxin challenged recognition and enforcement of the award by arguing that: (i) there was no arbitration agreement between the parties; and (ii) CAL had violated its arbitration rules, the English Arbitration Act of 1996, and the UNCITRAL Model Law with respect to the arbitration procedure. The Jiangsu Higher People's Court agreed with the lower court’s opinion, inter alia, there was no agreement between the parties and thus the award should be refused recognition and enforcement even though it found no ground under Articles V(1) or V(2) NYC for refusal. The Jiangsu 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, in reviewing the Jiangsu Higher People's Court’s report, considered that there was no arbitration agreement and opined that the award should be refused recognition and enforcement according to Article 269 of the Chinese Civil Procedure Law and the NYC. |
Attachment (2)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
Unofficial Translation Adobe Acrobat PDF |
