![China / 12 November 2003 / China, 中华人民共和国最高人民法院 (Supreme People’s Court) / Gerald Metals Inc. v. Wuhu Smelter & Refinery Co., Ltd. and Wuhu Hengxin Copper (Group) Inc. / [2003] Min Si Ta Zi No.12 ([2003]民四他字第12号)](./images/case-law.png)
China / 12 November 2003 / China, 中华人民共和国最高人民法院 (Supreme People’s Court) / Gerald Metals Inc. v. Wuhu Smelter & Refinery Co., Ltd. and Wuhu Hengxin Copper (Group) Inc. / [2003] Min Si Ta Zi No.12 ([2003]民四他字第12号)
| Country | China |
| Court | China, 中华人民共和国最高人民法院 (Supreme People’s Court) |
| Date | 12 November 2003 |
| Parties | Gerald Metals Inc. v. Wuhu Smelter & Refinery Co., Ltd. and Wuhu Hengxin Copper (Group) Inc. |
| Case number | [2003] Min Si Ta Zi No.12 ([2003]民四他字第12号) |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | V | V(1)(c) | V(1)(b) |
| Source |
Guide on Foreign-related Commercial and Maritime Trial, pp. 30-35 (People's Court Press, Vol. 1, 2004). |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | Gerald Metals Inc. (GMI) and Wuhu Smeltery & Refinery Co., Ltd. (Wuhu Smelter) entered into an agreement for the sale of cooper. The parties' contract provided for arbitration in London according to the rules of the London Metal Exchange (LME). A dispute arose with regard to the delivery of the cooper. On 7 December 2001, GMI submitted a request for arbitration to the LME against Wuhu Smelter and another company, Wuhu Hengxin Copper (Group) Inc. (Wuhu Hengxin). On 23 May 2002, the tribunal rendered an award ordering both respondents, Wuhu Smelter and Wuhu Hengxin, to pay damages to GMI. GMI applied for recognition of the award on 19 November 2002 with the Anhui Higher People's Court. Wuhu Smelter challenged the application on the grounds that: (i) Wuhu Smeltery did not receive any notice regarding the appointment of arbitrators and the arbitration proceedings and as a result was not permitted to present its case and according to Article V(1)(b) NYC the award should not be recognised; (ii) GMI did not submit its application for recognition within the required time frame; and (iii) Wuhu Smeltery was not capable performing the award. Wuhu Hengxin challenged the application on the basis that it was not a party to the agreement and therefore did not consent to the LME arbitration. The Anhui Higher People's Court opined that the award should not be recognised according to Article V(1)(c) NYC. In particular, the court opined that the award was beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement because it identified Wuhu Hengxin, who was not a party to the agreement between GMI and Wuhu Smeltery, as one of the respondents and it was unclear as to whom the award was directed. The Anhui 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 not be recognised with respect to Wuhu Hengxin and that it should be recognised with respect to Wuhu Smeltery. Furthermore and with reference to Article V(1)(c) NYC, the court opined that the portion of the award that dealt specifically with Wuhu Smeltery's liability should be recognised whereas the portion of award where liability amongst the two respondents is indistinguishable should not be recognised. |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
