Beijing Arbitration Sets New International Record

On June 12, the 2025 Beijing CBD Forum and Conference on High-Level Openness and Foreign-Related Rule of Law Development was held in the capital. At the event, Cui Yang, Party Secretary and Director of the Beijing Municipal Bureau of Justice, released a set of groundbreaking data: the Beijing Arbitration Commission has set a new international record in arbitration efficiency with an average case resolution period of just 101 days. Its domestic enforcement rate for arbitral awards is nearly 100%. According to the latest international arbitration report, Beijing has, for the first time, ranked among the top four most popular arbitration seats globally.

The rule of law is the best business environment, and foreign-related rule of law serves as a "stabilizer" for opening up to the outside world. In recent years, Beijing’s judicial administrative system has pioneered a “1+N” commercial dispute resolution service framework, promoting deep integration of mediation, arbitration, and litigation to create a one-stop legal service hub for foreign-related matters. Currently, 41 law firms based in Beijing have established 361 overseas offices across 97 countries and regions, with a service network extending to 33 countries along the Belt and Road. This provides comprehensive legal support for Chinese enterprises going global.

CIETAC Visits the UK for Legal Exchange During Disputes Week

From June 1 to 3, during the 2025 London International Disputes Week (LIDW25), Wang Chengjie, Vice Chairman and Secretary-General of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), led a delegation to London for a series of productive legal exchange activities aimed at enhancing mutual understanding and deepening professional cooperation.

Focusing on dispute resolution, the CIETAC delegation carefully organized and hosted a number of events, including a roundtable with Chinese enterprises in the UK, a discussion with CIETAC arbitrators based in the UK, and an international arbitration seminar on Belt and Road dispute resolution. These events brought together legal professionals from both China and the UK to explore key topics in arbitration practice and cross-border dispute resolution. Participants engaged in in-depth discussions on the latest trends in international arbitration, challenges and hot topics in cross-border disputes, and innovations in Belt and Road dispute resolution mechanisms. The exchanges resulted in broad consensus on expanding cooperation in international arbitration and laid a solid foundation for mutual trust and pragmatic collaboration between the legal communities of both countries.

This visit by the CIETAC delegation to the UK, with the aim of fostering understanding and enhancing cooperation, featured a compact yet highly effective agenda. Through a series of professional activities and extensive engagement with the British legal sector, the delegation showcased the professionalism of Chinese international arbitration and established a lasting channel for Sino-British legal dialogue. The successful trip marks a new milestone in cross-border dispute resolution cooperation between China and the UK.

2025 China Maritime and Commercial Arbitration High-Level Dialogue Successfully Held

On June 6, the 2025 China Maritime and Commercial Arbitration High-Level Dialogue was successfully held in Beijing. Hosted by the China Maritime Arbitration Commission (CMAC), the event was jointly organized with five partner institutions, including the All China Lawyers Association, the Asia Pacific Centre for Arbitration and Mediation, the London Maritime Arbitrators Association, the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, and the Hong Kong Shipowners Association. It also received strong support and participation from 15 domestic and international organizations, including the International Commercial Dispute Prevention and Settlement Organization (ICDPASO), the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), the Maritime Arbitration Commission of the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration (SCMA), the Korean Arbitrators Association, the Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration, and the AALCO Hong Kong Regional Arbitration Centre.

With the theme “Advancing Maritime Arbitration Innovation and Building a World-Class Arbitration Institution,” the dialogue brought together nearly 30 prominent domestic and international experts for discussions aimed at deepening international cooperation in arbitration and jointly promoting the development of global arbitration practices. Attendees included representatives from government and judicial bodies, the national trade promotion system, as well as members of the legal, business, and academic communities from both China and abroad.

During the outcomes release session, CMAC launched the Compilation of Representative Maritime and Commercial Arbitration Cases Involving Free Trade Zone Enterprises, featuring ten exemplary cases that reflect the commission’s practical experience in resolving maritime disputes involving FTZ-based companies. The compilation is intended to serve as a guiding reference, stabilize parties’ expectations, promote lawful dispute resolution, and contribute to the high-quality development of China’s free trade zones.

Beijing No. 4 Intermediate People’s Court:

Clause Referring to Arbitration "Through Negotiation and Mediation" Still Constitutes a Valid Arbitration Agreement

Legal Basis:

"Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China"

Article 16, Paragraph 2

An arbitration agreement shall contain the following particulars:

(1) An expression of intent to submit to arbitration;

(2) The matters to be arbitrated;

(3) The designated arbitration commission.

Case Description：

On May 14, 2014, Party A (a lighting company) and Party B (a machinery company) entered into a Construction Contract. Article 13 of the contract stipulated:“If a dispute arises and cannot be resolved through negotiation, both parties agree to choose one of the following methods:

1.Submit the dispute to the Beijing Arbitration Commission for arbitration through negotiation and mediation;

2.File a lawsuit in the local People’s Court for any disputes arising during the execution of this contract.”

The applicant (Plaintiff), the machinery company, argued that the clause failed to meet the requirement under Article 16, Paragraph 2 of the Arbitration Law—specifically, that an arbitration agreement must include an express intention to arbitrate. It requested the court to declare the clause invalid. The respondent (Defendant), the lighting company, did not respond or submit written arguments.

Court's View:

The court held that the disputed clause does express an intention to arbitrate. Article 13 of the Construction Contract clearly states in option (1): “Submit the dispute to the Beijing Arbitration Commission for arbitration through negotiation and mediation.” The phrase “submit...for arbitration” unambiguously reflects the parties’ mutual consent to arbitrate disputes. The subsequent mention of “through negotiation and mediation” is merely a description or recommendation of potential methods for resolving the dispute within the arbitration process (e.g., arbitral mediation), and does not override or negate the core agreement to arbitrate.

The clause applies to disputes arising from the performance of the Construction Contract, thus clearly identifying the matters to be arbitrated. The designation of the “Beijing Arbitration Commission” is specific and unambiguous.

Furthermore, the arbitration clause does not fall under any of the invalidity scenarios set forth in Article 17 (e.g., matters outside the scope of arbitration, parties lacking legal capacity, coercion) or Article 18 (e.g., no agreement on arbitration matters or institution and failure to reach a supplementary agreement).

The dispute resolution clause (option 1) in Article 13 satisfies the formal requirements of Article 16 of the Arbitration Law, including an intention to arbitrate, specified arbitral matters, and designation of an arbitration commission. The reference to “negotiation and mediation” pertains only to possible procedures within arbitration and does not affect the validity of the parties’ arbitration agreement.

In conclusion, the court found that Company A’s grounds for setting aside the arbitral award in Case No. 1270 were without merit and therefore dismissed the application to set aside the award.

Singapore High Court:Implied Rejection of Defences in Arbitration Does Not Breach Natural Justice; Setting-Aside Application Dismissed

Case Description：

On October 10, 2014, a company, two founders (the first and second plaintiffs in this case, also the respondents in the arbitration), the investor (defendant and claimant in the arbitration), and two other parties jointly signed a Share Purchase and Shareholders Agreement (hereinafter referred as“the Agreement”). Article 19 of the Agreement provided that if the company failed to complete a Qualified IPO by March 31, 2016, the investor could issue a “Secondary Sale Initiation Notice” to sell its shares at no less than the “Exit Price.” If the secondary sale failed, the company and the founders were obligated to repurchase the shares. If repurchase also failed, the parties would proceed with an IPO. In the event of a material breach (such as denial of an exit opportunity), the investor could unilaterally sell all shares to a third party via a “Strategic Sale.” Article 24 defined liability for breach, with Clause 24.4(c) identifying the failure to provide an exit as a material breach, and Clause 24.6(b) granting the investor a repurchase right.

From April 2016 onward, the second, third, and first investors successively issued Secondary Sale Initiation Notices under Article 19.1, but failed to secure suitable buyers. On September 18, 2020, the second and third investors requested the appointment of a banker to facilitate the transaction, and on January 5, 2021, the first investor reiterated the demand to complete the secondary sale or initiate an IPO. On April 11, 2022, the investor issued a notice alleging material breach and commenced arbitration on April 14 and 21, later consolidated on April 30.

On July 5, 2024, the arbitral tribunal held that Article 19.1 imposed an “absolute obligation” on the company and the founders to actively seek secondary market buyers. It ruled that the investors' notices were valid, the company and founders had materially breached the agreement, and that the investor was entitled to damages based on the 2020 exit price, offset by any proceeds from a strategic sale. The investor was required to return the shares upon receiving compensation.

Court’s View:

In hearing OA 1033, the Singapore High Court assessed whether the tribunal had violated principles of natural justice or exceeded its discretion. The Court made the following key findings:

1. Judicial Review Framework

Under Section 24 of the International Arbitration Act, Singapore courts may only set aside arbitral awards for breaches of natural justice or if the award exceeds the scope of the arbitration agreement or the tribunal’s authority. Courts do not re-evaluate the merits unless a party was denied a meaningful opportunity to present its case, or where factual findings seriously deviate from the record.

2. Application of the “Implied Rejection” Principle

Citing ASG v ASH [2016] 5 SLR 54 and TMM Division Maritima SA de CV v Pacific Richfield Marine Pte Ltd [2013] 4 SLR 972, the Court affirmed that tribunals may implicitly reject defences through the logic of the award and factual findings. Tribunals are not required to address every argument expressly, as long as the substance of the defence is considered and dismissed.

3. Analysis of the Waiver Defence

The tribunal thoroughly considered the investors’ repeated references to Article 19.1 and their appointment of Credit Suisse as advisor. Under Article 29.5, any waiver required express written confirmation. The founders provided no such evidence. The tribunal’s findings on the investors’ consistent assertion of rights and the legal requirement for written waiver constituted a substantive rejection of the waiver defence, without any procedural defect or prejudice.

4. Treatment of the Buy-Back Defence

Interpretation: The founders argued that damages under Article 19.1 amounted to a de facto buy-back, subject to Indian company law restrictions. The tribunal explicitly distinguished monetary compensation under common law from the formal buy-back mechanism under Clause 24.6(b) (see paras [332], [370], [372], [381]).

Enforceability: Even if damages were treated as a buy-back, the founders failed to provide evidence that such a remedy violated Indian law. Moreover, since the interpretative defence was already dismissed, the enforceability objection lacked foundation.

Procedural Justice: The tribunal was not required to refute each aspect of the buy-back defence in detail. The Court emphasized that implied rejection was sufficient, and the tribunal's reasoning—both oral and written—demonstrated that the defence was fairly considered. No procedural unfairness or substantive deprivation was shown.

5. Public Policy Under the New York Convention

The Court stressed that, in line with Singapore’s role as a leading arbitration hub, and in deference to transnational arbitral proceedings, setting aside awards is only warranted where there is a serious breach of public policy or denial of justice. In this case, the tribunal acted within legal and contractual bounds and did not cross the public policy threshold.
In conclusion, The Singapore High Court found no procedural or substantive fault in the tribunal’s handling of the dispute. The founders’ two grounds for setting aside the award were rejected and the Court ruled to dismiss the setting-aside application and uphold the arbitral award.