![China / 02 September 2009 / China, 中华人民共和国最高人民法院 (Supreme People’s Court) / Wu Chunying v. Zhang Guiwen / [2009] Min Si Ta Zi No. 33 ([2009] 民四他字第33号)](./images/case-law.png)
China / 02 September 2009 / China, 中华人民共和国最高人民法院 (Supreme People’s Court) / Wu Chunying v. Zhang Guiwen / [2009] Min Si Ta Zi No. 33 ([2009] 民四他字第33号)
| Country | China |
| Court | China, 中华人民共和国最高人民法院 (Supreme People’s Court) |
| Date | 02 September 2009 |
| Parties | Wu Chunying v. Zhang Guiwen |
| Case number | [2009] Min Si Ta Zi No. 33 ([2009] 民四他字第33号) |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | V | V(2)(a) |
| Source |
Guide on Foreign-related Commercial and Maritime Trial, pp. 97-100 (People's Court Press, Vol. 2, 2009). |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | Wu Chunying's husband and Zhang Guiwen entered into an agreement to incorporate a limited liability corporation in Mongolia. This agreement provided that any dispute arising under the contract would be submitted to arbitration with the Mongolian National Arbitration Court (MNAC). During the operation of the company the husband of Wu Chunying passed away. On 3 November 2006, Wu Chunying filed a request for arbitration with the MNAC seeking, among other things, determination her ability to succeed to her husband's 50% share in the corporation. The arbitral tribunal accepted her request and ruled, inter alia, that according to the Civil Code of Mongolia that Wu Chunying was the legal successor to all rights and properties owed to her husband in Mongolia. Wu Chunying applied for recognition and enforcement of the award before the Binzhou Intermediate People's Court. The court opined that the award should not recognised or enforced under Article V NYC and Article 3 of the Arbitration of the People's Republic of China. In particular, the court opined that Wu Chunying's right in the corporation as her husband's successor was a matter related to succession law. The Binzhou Intermediate People's Court’s opinion was reported to the Shandong Higher People's Court for review. The Shandong Higher People's Court opined that the award should not be recognised or enforced under Article V(2)(a) NYC since the award made a determination as to Wu Chunying's succession to her husband's share in the corporation, which was contrary to Article 3 of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China, stating that matters of succession are not arbitrable. The Shandong Higher People 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 award should not be recognised or enforced. In particular, the court opined that the award mainly concerned the succession of Wu Chunying to her husband's share in the corporation. Accordingly, the court opined that the award should not be recognised or enforced under Article V(2)(a) NYC and Article 3 of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China. |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
