Shanghai among the top 10 most popular international arbitration locations in the world
The 3rd Shanghai International Arbitration Summit and the opening ceremony of the 2021 Shanghai Arbitration Week took place on 8 November, and for the first time, Shanghai was ranked among the top ten most popular international arbitration venues in the world, coming in eighth place according to the published International Arbitration Survey 2021.
Along with the development of international trade, international arbitration has become an important method and approach for resolving disputes arising in the course of trade. Since the implementation of China's first Arbitration Law in 1995, by the end of June 2021, Shanghai arbitration institutions have handled a total of more than 56,000 cases of all kinds, with a total value of over RMB 380 billion, with parties to cases in more than 80 countries and regions around the world. In addition, Shanghai's arbitration institutions have already handled cases with a disputed amount of more than 10 billion (RMB). This all shows that Shanghai is highly recognized as an arbitration venue, not only domestically, but also internationally.
Zhuhai Court of International Arbitration releases Implementation Plan to build a cross-border arbitration cooperation platform
On 23 November 2021, the 2021 Annual Working Meeting of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area Arbitration Union and the Forum on the Convergence of Commercial Arbitration Systems and the Internationalization of Arbitration in the Hengqin Guangdong-Macao Deep Cooperation Zone were held in Hengqin. The "Implementation Plan for the Zhuhai Court of International Arbitration to Serve the Construction of the Hengqin Guangdong-Macao Deep Cooperation Zone" (the "Implementation Plan") was officially launched at the conference. The Implementation Plan creatively sets out several guiding principles and methods to guide arbitration activities in the application of Mainland or Macau law to resolve civil and commercial disputes.
According to the Implementation Plan, the Zhuhai Court of International Arbitration will take the opportunity of the construction of the Co-operation Zone to benchmark the internationally accepted commercial arbitration system and commercial practices in a more in-depth, precise and comprehensive manner, dovetail the two sets of civil and commercial rules and systems of the Mainland and Macau, innovate the arbitration mechanism and system, and take the lead in promoting the convergence of the rules of Zhuhai and Macau in the field of arbitration.
China Maritime Arbitration Commission and Shanghai Maritime Court jointly release White Paper on Delegated Mediation in Maritime Cases
On 5 November 2021, the 3rd China Maritime Justice and Arbitration Summit Forum, co-organized by the China Maritime Arbitration Commission (CMAC) and the Shanghai headquarters of CMAC, opened in Shanghai. As a result of the 10-year establishment of the mechanism of entrusted mediation in maritime cases between CMAC and Shanghai Maritime Court, the forum also released the "White Paper on Entrusted Mediation in Maritime Cases between CMAC and Shanghai Maritime Court (2011~2021)" (hereinafter referred to as the "White Paper").
According to the White Paper, over the past ten years, the Shanghai Maritime Court has entrusted more than 200 cases to the Shanghai headquarters of the CMAC for mediation, with the number of cases steadily increasing year by year. The cases involved 42 countries and regions, with a total value of over RMB 500 million. The success rate of mediation is close to half, and the success rate of entrusted mediation in the past five years has reached 62%, doubling in ringgit. The success rate of entrusted mediation generally reached over 85% in cases with prominent specialization such as marine environmental pollution, maritime personal injury and ship collision.
Compared to the rapid and diversified development of the shipping economy, the entrusted mediation mechanism for maritime cases needs more practice. The white paper, as a fruitful result of the cooperation between the two parties, is conducive to the industry's better understanding of the entrusted mediation work in maritime disputes, and promotes the better operation and development of the multi-dimensional dispute resolution mechanism.
Heze Intermediate People's Court of Shandong Province：The court revoke the arbitral award because it was not signed by the person himself,
which constituted "forged evidence".
Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China (Revision 2017)，Article 58：
Where the parties concerned can provide evidence disproving the arbitration award in any of the following circumstances, they may request a cancellation of the arbitration award by an intermediate People's Court at the place where the arbitration commission is located: ……(4) the evidence upon which the arbitration award is made was counterfeit;……Where the People's Court has formed a collegiate bench and has examined and verified that the award was made under one of the aforesaid situations, it shall order the cancellation of the award. Where the People's Court decides that it should make a ruling to the effect that there has been a violation of the public interest, it shall order the cancellation of the award.
The Juancheng Agricultural and Commercial Bank applied to the Heze Arbitration Commission for arbitration on 28 October 2019, requesting: i) that Zhang Aimei, Li Qianyue and Li Qiantong be awarded the repayment of the principal amount of the loan of RMB 100,000 and interest (interest accrued according to the contract during the term, with a 30% penalty added to the overdue portion); ii) that Li Haitao and Wang Haixia bear joint and several guarantee liability for the said amount; iii) that the arbitration fees, attorney's fees, travel expenses and other related The costs shall be borne by the above-mentioned respondents. The application was accepted by the Heze Arbitration Commission, Case No. (2019) He Arbitration No. 649.
On 20 November 2019, the Heze Arbitration Commission published a notice in the Shandong Law Journal to serve Zhang Aimei, Li Qianyue, Li Qiantong, Li Haitao and Wang Haixia with the relevant materials in case No. (2019) He Arbitration Word No. 649, and set a hearing for 17 January 2020 at 10:00 a.m. Please collect the arbitration award within 10 days after the hearing, after which it will be deemed to be served.
On 17 January 2020, the Heze Arbitration Commission held a hearing on (2019) He Arbitration Word No. 649, in which Zhang Aimei, Li Qian Yue, Li Qian Tong, Li Haitao and Wang Haixia failed to appear. on 5 February 2020, the Heze Arbitration Commission rendered (2019) He Arbitration Word No. 649, awarding: i. The Respondent Zhang Aimei repaid within ten days from the next day after the service of this award Ltd. of the applicant, the principal amount of the loan of RMB 100,000 and interest (RMB 5,234.87 prior to 28 April 2016, and the principal amount owed for interest from 29 April 2016 to the date of expiry of the performance period determined in this award, calculated at the overdue interest rate); ii. the respondent Li Haitao shall be liable for the principal amount of the first item of the loan of RMB 100,000 and interest Within 150,000 yuan to assume joint and several guarantee liability; three, reject the applicant other arbitration requests. The arbitration fee of 3326 yuan was borne by the respondent Zhang Aimei and Li Haitao.
Zhang Aimei was not convinced by the (2019) Heze Arbitration Committee's award No. 649, and applied to this court to set aside the arbitral award. In the course of the Court's review, Zhang Aimei applied for identification of the signature and handprint of "Zhang Aimei" in the joint repayment undertaking. The Court organized the parties to obtain the examination materials, and both parties did not object to the examination materials.
On August 2, 2021, the technical department of the Court organized the two parties to identify the identification agency for the case as Shandong Haode Forensic Judicial Identification Institute. 18 August, the identification agency issued Shandong Haode  material evidence (Wen) Jianzi No. 1125 identification report: the date of "January 18, 2014" joint repayment The handwriting of the signature of "Zhang Aimei" in the commitment letter "Property co-owner (signature):" is not written by Zhang Aimei; the fingerprint of "Zhang Aimei" in the joint repayment commitment letter has a small surface and a thick color, and the fingerprint is blurred. The print color is thick, blurred, poor clarity, stable details for the test feature points less, does not have the conditions for identification, so the case is returned.
According to the provisions of Article 58(4) of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China, the joint repayment commitment letter based on the Heze Arbitration Commission in this case was identified by the technical department of the Court entrusted to Shandong Haode Judicial Appraisal Institute of Physical Evidence, the commitment letter "property co-owner (signature):" at "Zhang Aimei "The signature is not written by Zhang Aimei herself, so the joint repayment undertaking is a forgery, and the award (2019) He Arbitration No. 649 made by the Heze Arbitration Commission on the basis of the joint repayment undertaking should be set aside in accordance with the law.
Juancheng Agricultural and Commercial Bank argued that Zhang Aimei's application had exceeded the statutory six-month period. Upon review, the announcement of the Heze Arbitration Commission on 20 November 2019 showed that the hearing of (2019) He Arbitration Word No. 649 was held at 10:00 p.m. on 17 January 2020, requiring Zhang Aimei and other persons served to collect the arbitral award within 10 days after the hearing. However, the arbitral award in this case was made on 5 February 2020, which was inconsistent with the time of service of the notice, and should be regarded as not having effectively served the arbitral award on Zhang Aimei. Zhang Aimei only became aware of the content of the arbitral award after the arbitral award had entered into the enforcement procedure, and applied to the Court for the setting aside of the arbitral award after she became aware of the content of the arbitral award, which did not exceed the statutory period of six months.
In summary, Zhang Aimei's application was justified and the Court supported it in accordance with the law. In accordance with the provisions of Articles 58, 59 and 60 of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China, it was ruled as follows: The arbitral award (2019) He Zhong Cai Zi No.649 issued by Heze Arbitration Commission shall be revoked.
Tianjin Second Intermediate People's Court:
Where there are two or more registered arbitration institutions and the parties concerned fail to reach an agreement, the arbitration agreement shall be invalid.
Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China (Revision 2017)
Article 16：An arbitration agreement shall include arbitral clauses stipulated in the contract and other written agreements which request arbitration to be made prior to or following the occurrence of a dispute. An arbitration agreement shall include the following:
(1) the expression of an application for arbitration;
(2) items for arbitration;
(3) the chosen arbitration commission.
Where an arbitration agreement has not specified or has not specified clearly items for arbitration or the choice of an arbitration commission, the parties concerned may conclude a supplementary agreement. If a supplementary agreement cannot be reached, the arbitration agreement shall be void.
On 25 February 2014, the Project Manager Department of FPZQ-4 of Fuping Railway of China Railway 13th Bureau Group (the buyer) and Hangzhou Juren Company (the seller) signed two "Material Procurement Contracts for New Fuzhou to Station Project" with contract numbers FPZQ4WZ-SN001 and FPZQ4WZ-FMH002 respectively, which both agreed in General Contract Clause 24. Settlement of Disputes that in the event of a dispute arising in the course of the execution of the contract, the buyer and seller shall promptly resolve it by friendly negotiation on the basis of the principles of fairness and reasonableness. If the dispute is not resolved within 60 days, it shall be submitted to the arbitration institution in the buyer's place of residence for resolution. The arbitration result shall be the final resolution of the dispute and shall be binding on both the buyer and the seller.
It is also found that the Project Manager Department of FPZQ-4 of Fuping Railway of China Railway Thirteenth Bureau Group is a temporary project management organization established by China Railway Thirteenth Bureau Group Co. Ltd. was approved to change its name to China Railway Construction Thirteen Bureau Group Ltd. on December 26, 2013, and changed its name to China Railway Construction Bridge Engineering Bureau Group Ltd. on March 25, 2014 after approval. The respondent Hangzhou Juren Company recognized that the rights and obligations of the project manager of the FPZQ-4 project of the Fuping Railway of the China Railway Thirteenth Bureau Group were exercised by the applicant Tiejian Bridge Company, and also recognized that the domicile of Tiejian Bridge Company was the location of the buyer as agreed in the contract. During the court hearing, the two parties failed to reach an agreement on the choice of arbitration institution.
The case "new Fuzhou to the station project material procurement contract" agreed that in the implementation of the contract in the process of disputes, the buyer and seller should be in a fair and reasonable principle of timely and friendly consultation to resolve. If the dispute is not resolved within 60 days, it shall be submitted to the arbitration institution at the buyer's location for settlement. The Respondent accepted that the location of the Buyer was Tianjin, which should be understood as the parties agreed that the arbitration institution would be the arbitration institution in Tianjin. In view of the fact that there were more than two arbitration institutions registered with the Tianjin Municipal Bureau of Justice in Tianjin and the parties could not agree on the choice of arbitration institution. Pursuant to Article 6 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China, the arbitration agreement in question should be deemed invalid.
In accordance with Articles 16, 18 and 20 of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 6 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues of the Application of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China, it was ruled as follows: To confirm that the arbitration agreement between the claimant China Railway Construction Bridge Engineering Bureau Group Co., Ltd. and the respondent Hangzhou Juren Materials Co., Ltd. is null and void.
This Newsletter is produced by ZLWD International Business Committee and for your reference only.
Editorial Board: Wei LIN Philip DUAN Ellen WANG
Lingling GUO Yuming Li Ning Ning Yu Zhuan
All Information published in this Newsletter is from open source.
If you have any suggestion or need more information, please contact us.