The Guangzhou Arbitration Commission’s London Hearing Center Successfully Concludes the Hearing of Its First Case

On October 24, 2025, the Guangzhou Arbitration Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "GZAC") held its first hearing at its London Hearing Center, which was successfully concluded. With the presiding arbitrator announcing the end of the hearing, this milestone marks a substantive step forward in GZAC’ s internationalization process.

The case involved a cross-border financial dispute, with parties and related assets in Hong Kong and the United Kingdom, highlighting its distinct international nature. The arbitral tribunal was composed of three arbitrators from China, Malaysia, and the United Kingdom. The hearing took place in London, while the seat of arbitration was designated as Guangzhou. This cross-jurisdictional and cross-cultural hearing model demonstrated GZAC’ s professional competence and institutional flexibility in handling international commercial disputes.

The successful conclusion of this case is a vivid practice of GZAC’ s ongoing efforts to deepen its internationalization and professionalization. In recent years, GZAC has actively responded to the national call for strengthening the development of foreign-related legal systems. It has implemented Guangdong Province’s goal of building "three first-class systems and one platform," with a focus on enhancing credibility, embracing innovation, and striving to establish itself as a world-class arbitration institution.

By successfully handling this case with London as a pivotal point, GZAC has not only gained valuable experience in conducting arbitration in common law jurisdictions but has also opened a new chapter in expanding its service network to the European continent and enhancing its international influence.

CIETAC Successfully Hosts Vancouver Seminar to Advance China–Canada Arbitration Dialogue

On November 20, 2025, the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) and the Vancouver Maritime Arbitrators Association jointly organized a seminar in Vancouver, Canada, titled "Latest Hot Topics in International Commercial Arbitration—Focus on Practices in Canada and China." The event was hosted by the CIETAC North American Arbitration Center and received support from several local chambers of commerce, attracting over a hundred representatives from the legal, academic, and business sectors of China and Canada.

During the seminar, representatives from both sides delivered welcome speeches. Wang Chengjie, Vice Chairman and Secretary-General of CIETAC, noted that as economic and trade cooperation between China and Canada deepens, the demand for cross-border dispute resolution is growing. CIETAC has been continuously improving its services through rule innovations, international expansion, and other initiatives, while actively expanding regional cooperation. He also highlighted the favorable enforcement of CIETAC awards in Canada.

The seminar provided a professional platform for exchanges between the arbitration communities of the two countries, deepening the Canadian side’s understanding of arbitration practices in China. During their visit, the CIETAC delegation also met with local law firms for discussions, further promoting professional exchanges and international cooperation.

Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award over Forged Signature and Lack of Arbitration Agreement

Legal Basis:

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

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:

(1) there was no arbitration agreement;

(2) items for arbitration were not within the scope of the arbitration agreement or were those upon which the arbitration commission had no right to arbitrate;

(3) the establishment of the arbitration tribunal or arbitration procedures are in contravention of legal proceedings;

(4) the evidence upon which the arbitration award is made was counterfeit;

(5) the other party has concealed evidence to the degree that fairness has been affected;

(6) arbitrators have accepted bribes, resorted to deception for personal gain or perverted the course of justice by the award.

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.

Case Summary：

On 1 August 2011, Jiang and Song registered their marriage. On 1 March 2021, a bank entered into a Micro and Small Enterprise Mortgage Loan Guarantee Agreement with Company A, Song, and an individual identified in the contract as the guarantor “Jiang”.The bank subsequently disbursed the loan on 5 March 2021.

In 2024, a dispute arose in connection with the loan. Relying on the arbitration clause contained in the contract, the bank submitted the dispute to Guangzhou Arbitration Commission. Following a hearing held on 10 July 2024, the arbitral tribunal rendered its award on 13 August 2024, holding that Jiangshould bear joint and several guarantee liability for the underlying debt.

On 14 August 2024, the arbitral institution mailed the award to the contractually agreed address and to the address listed on Jiang’s identification documents. Both mailings were returned due to “incorrect or unknown recipient information and unreachable telephone contact”. Jiang only became aware of the arbitral award after the bank applied for enforcement, at which point his bank accounts were frozen.

On 27 March 2025, Jiang applied to the court to set aside the arbitral award, asserting that the signature appearing on the contract was forged and that no arbitration agreement existed between him and the bank. To ascertain the facts, the court commissioned a handwriting appraisal. On 28 August 2025, the expert opinion concluded that the signatures bearing the name Jiang on the loan contract and its appendices were not written by Jiang himself.

Court's View:

The court held that this case involved an application to revoke a domestic arbitration award and should be reviewed according to the provisions of Article 58 of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China.

First, regarding the authenticity of the arbitration agreement and the legitimacy of the evidence. According to Item 1 and Item 4 of the first paragraph of Article 58 of the Arbitration Law, an award shall be revoked if there is no arbitration agreement or if the evidence on which the award is based is forged. In this case, the judicial examination confirmed that the signatures of the guarantor "Jiang" on the involved Loan Contract and its appendices were not signed by herself. This Loan Contract was the fundamental basis for the arbitral tribunal to determine Jiang as the guarantor and rule her liable, constituting major evidence for establishing the basic facts of the case. Now that this key evidence has been proven forged, the part of the arbitration award involving Jiang's guarantee liability falls under the circumstance where "the evidence on which the award is based is forged." Simultaneously, since Jiang did not sign the contract and there is no other evidence indicating she reached an arbitration agreement with the bank, no genuine arbitration agreement existed between the parties.

Second, regarding the time limit for applying to revoke the arbitration award. The court held that because Jiang's signature was not authentic, she had not confirmed the delivery address and contact phone number in the Loan Contract. The award mailed by the Guangzhou Arbitration Commission to the contract address and Jiang's ID card address was returned due to "incorrect/incomplete recipient name or address and phone unreachable." Therefore, it could not be determined that Jiang had actually received the arbitration award. Under these circumstances, Jiang's application to the court for revocation after becoming aware of it did not exceed the statutory six-month time limit. The bank's defense regarding the application being time-barred could not be sustained.

Finally, in accordance with Items 1 and 4 of the first paragraph of Article 58 of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China, the court ruled to revoke the parts of Items 3 and 4 of the Guangzhou Arbitration Commission Award (2024) Sui Zhong An Zi No. 8355 concerning Jiang's guarantee liability and the arbitration fees.

Fujian High People's Court:

Applying the Principle of Res Judicata, Court Dismisses Mainland Action Brought by the Losing Party in Hong Kong Final Appeal Proceedings against a Fujian State-Owned Enterprise

Case Summary：

In 2001, the plaintiffs (Mr. Yan and a laser technology company under his control) commenced proceedings before the Hong Kong courts against Huamin Company and Jian’an Company, concerning the USD 60 million proceeds derived from the sale of equity interests in Fujian Huake Optoelectronics Co., Ltd. The Hong Kong litigation was procedurally complex and extended over 23 years. In November 2023, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal rendered its final judgment, granting the plaintiffs’ claims only in part and rejecting their request for the return of the USD 60 million equity transfer proceeds.

In 2024, Mr. Yan and the laser company initiated fresh proceedings before the Fuzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Fujian Province, seeking restitution of alleged unjust enrichment in an amount of approximately RMB 907 million (corresponding to the USD 60 million claim rejected in the Hong Kong proceedings, together with interest). The defendants comprised three entities: two Hong Kong companies-Huamin Company and Jian’an Company-and the target company, Huake. The defendants raised jurisdictional objections, contending that the action constituted duplicative litigation and that adjudication by a Mainland court was forum non conveniens.

Upon review, the Fuzhou Intermediate People’s Court held that the primary connecting factors of the dispute were located in Hong Kong and, applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens, ruled to dismiss the action. Mr. Yan and the laser company appealed the decision.

Court's View：

First-Instance Court (Fuzhou Intermediate People's Court):

The first-instance court primarily applied the provisions concerning the forum non conveniens doctrine under Article 282 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China. It reasoned that, among the defendants, only Huake Optoelectronic Company had its domicile in Fuzhou. However, the disputed unjust enrichment (USD 60 million) constituted the consideration for the equity transfer and was actually received by Jian'an Company. Huake Optoelectronic Company, as the transferred target, did not obtain this benefit. Therefore, Fuzhou was not the court most closely and substantively connected to the case. Given that the transaction originated in Hong Kong and Macao, the payment involved overseas elements, key evidence and parties were primarily in Hong Kong, and the related dispute had already been litigated in Hong Kong for many years, the Hong Kong court was deemed a more convenient forum. Accordingly, it ruled to dismiss the lawsuit.

Second-Instance Court (Fujian High People's Court):

Although the second-instance court upheld the original ruling, stating clearly that the first-instance handling was "not improper," it conducted an in-depth analysis on the substantive grounds of res judicata ("one matter shall not be adjudicated twice"), thereby negating the necessity of re-litigating this case in mainland courts.

Substantial Overlap of Parties: The court found that the interests of the plaintiffs, Mr. Yan and the laser company, were highly aligned. Mr. Yan himself and several companies he controlled were collectively referred to as the "Ngan camp" in the Hong Kong litigation, with the laser company already representing their interests. Thus, the parties in the lawsuits in the two jurisdictions were substantially the same.

Substantial Identity of Subject Matter: The court ascertained that the laser company had already raised alternative claims in the Hong Kong litigation, explicitly invoking Mainland Chinese law on "unjust enrichment" to seek the return of the USD 60 million equity transfer payment, based on the exact same factual foundation as in the present case. The difference in the claimed amount in this lawsuit merely constituted an adjustment by the appellants to the same unsupported claim and did not alter the subject matter of the litigation.

The Present Claim Substantially Negates the Effective Hong Kong Judgment: The court emphasized that the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal's judgment had already substantively adjudicated the laser company's claim for the return of the USD 60 million proceeds and rendered a final decision not to support it. Initiating the present lawsuit in the mainland essentially aimed to negate the effective judgment of the Hong Kong court, constituting res judicata.

The second-instance court specifically pointed out that during the 23-year-long proceedings, the Hong Kong court proactively applied Mainland Chinese law and respected relevant prior judgments from mainland courts, demonstrating full respect for mainland law and judicial decisions. This "mutual convergence of judicial approaches between the courts of the two jurisdictions" and the resulting judicial mutual trust serve as an important foundation for handling such cross-border disputes.

In the end, the Fujian High People's Court ruled to dismiss the appeal filed by Mr. Yan and the laser company, upholding the Fuzhou Intermediate People's Court's ruling to dismiss the lawsuit.