China / 12 October 2010 / China, 中华人民共和国最高人民法院 (Supreme People’s Court) / DMT Limited Company (DMT S.A.) v. Chaozhou City Huaye Packing Materials Co., Ltd. and Chaoan County Huaye Packing Materials Co., Ltd. / [2010] Min Si Ta Zi No. 51 ([2010] 民四他字第51号)
Country | China |
Court | China, 中华人民共和国最高人民法院 (Supreme People’s Court) |
Date | 12 October 2010 |
Parties | DMT Limited Company (DMT S.A.) v. Chaozhou City Huaye Packing Materials Co., Ltd. and Chaoan County Huaye Packing Materials Co., Ltd. |
Case number | [2010] Min Si Ta Zi No. 51 ([2010] 民四他字第51号) |
Applicable NYC Provisions | V | V(1)(e) | V(1)(d) |
Source |
Guide on Foreign-related Commercial and Maritime Trial, pp. 144-152 (People's Court Press, Vol. 2, 2010). |
Languages | English |
Summary | DMT Limited Company (DMT S.A.) (DMT) and Chaozhou City Huaye Packing Materials Co., Ltd. (Chaozhou City) entered into a sales contract, which provided that any disputes were to be submitted to the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) for arbitration pursuant to the applicable rules and laws of Singapore. A dispute arose and DMT filed for an arbitration with the ICC on 19 August 2004. An award was issued in favour of DMT on 27 July 2007. An addendum to the award was issued by the tribunal on 19 November 2007 changing the name of the respondent in the arbitration, Chaoan County Huaye Packing Materials Co., Ltd. (Chaoan County), from “Chaozhou City Huaye Packing Materials Co., Ltd.” to “Chaoan County Huaye Packing Materials Co., Ltd.”. DMT then applied for recognition and enforcement of the award against Chaozhou City and Chaoan County with the Chaozhou Intermediate People’s Court. Chaozhou City challenged the application on the grounds that it was not a party subject to the dispute whereas Chaoan County objected, among other things, to the application on the basis that the appointment of the presiding arbitrator did not conform to the parties’ agreement or the arbitration rules and the arbitration proceedings were not in accordance with the arbitration rules. The Chaozhou Intermediate People’s Court opined that Chaozhou City was not a party to the dispute and thus the application should be rejected under Article V(1)(e) NYC with respect to Chaozhou City. The court also opined according to Article V(1)(d) NYC that the award should be refused recognition and enforcement as to Chaoan County on the basis that the appointment of the presiding arbitrator did not conform to the parties’ agreement or the arbitration rules. The Chaozhou Intermediate People’s Court reported its opinion to the Guangdong Higher People’s Court for review. The Guangdong Higher People’s Court confirmed that the award should not be recognised or enforced in relation to Chaozhou City. In particular the court opined, inter alia, that Chaozhou City was not a party to the dispute. With respect to Chaoan County, the court opined that there were no grounds for refusing recognition or enforcement of the award. The Guangdong 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 confirmed that the award should not be recognised and enforced against Chaozhou City as it was not a party to the dispute and that the award should be recognised and enforced against Chaoan County as the court opined that there were no grounds for refusal established by Chaoan County. The court opined that the NYC applied to the review of the award, but made no reference to any specific provision of the NYC in its opinion. |
Attachment (2)
![]() Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
![]() Unofficial Translation Adobe Acrobat PDF |