![China / 11 September 2001 / China, 中华人民共和国最高人民法院 (Supreme People’s Court) / Aoetker Germany v. Sinotrans Nanjing Co., Ltd. / [2000] Jiao Ta Zi No.11 ([2000]交他字第11号)](./images/case-law.png)
China / 11 September 2001 / China, 中华人民共和国最高人民法院 (Supreme People’s Court) / Aoetker Germany v. Sinotrans Nanjing Co., Ltd. / [2000] Jiao Ta Zi No.11 ([2000]交他字第11号)
| Country | China |
| Court | China, 中华人民共和国最高人民法院 (Supreme People’s Court) |
| Date | 11 September 2001 |
| Parties | Aoetker Germany v. Sinotrans Nanjing Co., Ltd. |
| Case number | [2000] Jiao Ta Zi No.11 ([2000]交他字第11号) |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | V | V(1)(c) |
| Source |
Guide and Study on China’s Foreign-related Commercial and Maritime Trials, pp. 133-142 (People's Court Press, Vol. 1, 2002) |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | On 20 July 1995, Aoetker Germany (Aoetker) and Sinotrans Nanjing Co., Ltd. (Sinotrans) entered into a charter-party via their respective agents. The charter-party referred to two arbitration clauses: one provided for arbitration in London with English law as the applicable law and the other provided for arbitration in either London or New York. On 22 July 1995, Sinotrans, through its agent, notified Aoetker of its cancellation of the charter-party and then entered into another charter-party with another company. Aoetker filed for arbitration in London. Receiving no reply from Sinotrans, Aoetker proceeded to appoint a sole-arbitrator to hear the dispute, who then rendered an award in favour of Aoetker on 23 January 1998. Aoetker applied for recognition and enforcement of the award before the Wuhan Maritime Court on 21 July 1998. The Wuhan Maritime Court opined that the award should not recognised or enforced according to Article V(1)(c) NYC and 269 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China. In particular, the court opined that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties because, among other things, even if Sinotrans had agreed to the charter-party it did not agree to the arbitration clause, which was an independent agreement. In addition, the court opined that Sinotrans did not authorise its agent to consent to the arbitration clause and the behaviour of the agent did not give rise to apparent-agency and thus should not be responsible for it. The Wuhan Maritime Court reported its opinion to the Wuhan Higher People’s Court for review. The Wuhan Higher People’s Court confirmed the opinion of the lower court. The Wuhan 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 opined that the award should be recognised and enforced according to Article 269 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and the NYC. In particular, the court opined that there were no grounds for refusing recognition or enforcement in the present application. |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
