In its decision of 4 July 2018, the Delhi High Court (“Court“) has agreed to enforce a China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) award against an Indian company, despite the award debtor’s arguments that the dispute should have been referred to and administrated by the now independent Shanghai International Arbitration Centre (SHIAC), which until mid-2012 was the Shanghai Sub-Commission of CIETAC (“Shanghai Sub-Commission“). The Court’s decision is interesting not only in discussing the 2012 split of CIETAC, but also because it may provide some guidance on how Indian courts may, in future, deal with structural changes to other arbitral institutions, such as the very recent termination of the joint venture between LCIA and Mauritius (the LCIA-MIAC Arbitration Centre), or the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration (SCIETAC/SCIA) and the Shenzhen Arbitration Commission (SAC) merger at the beginning of 2018. Last but not least, this decision reinforces a pro-enforcement approach of Indian courts in relation to foreign arbitral awards.
In Chen Hongqing v Persons whose names are set out in the second column of the Schedule Hereto, HCA 2648/2017 (unrep., 29 May 2018), the Hong Kong Court of First Instance granted an anti-suit injunction in favour of the Plaintiff, an intended purchaser of a Hong Kong company, to restrain the continuation of certain PRC proceedings commenced by the Defendants. Considerations such as non-exclusive jurisdiction clause, a real risk of deprivation of a fair trial in the foreign court and coercion exerted by senior management to cooperate with the local government were all relevant to the Court’s decision. Continue reading
On 15 July 2015, the Supreme People’s Court in China (the “SPC“) issued a binding judicial interpretation on how lower courts are to handle various issues arising out of the CIETAC split (the “SPC Reply“). The interpretation responded to requests from the Shanghai High People’s Court, the Jiangsu High People’s Court and the Guangdong High People’s Court. The SPC Reply becomes effective today, 17 July 2015. Continue reading
We previously reported the publication of our new ADR in Asia Guide. As well as distilling the results of our client survey on mediation in Hong Kong, the Guide contains a summary of the main ADR processes and their use across Asia. This summary also contains our Dispute Resolution Wheel, which explains at a glance the characteristics of the various dispute resolution processes you may encounter. Click here to access the summary and our Dispute Resolution Wheel.
If you would like a copy of our Guide, please email email@example.com.
We have recently posted two Asia-related arbitration updates on our arbitration blog relating to
The CIETAC split and the Chinese courts’ approach to enforcing awards rendered by SCIA and SHIAC
Since CIETAC announced on 1 August 2012 that it had suspended the authorisation of its Shanghai and South China (Shenzhen) sub-commissions to accept and administer arbitrations, there have been a number of developments.
The former Shanghai and South China sub-commissions have asserted that they have been approved and established by their respective municipal governments as independent arbitral commissions, and that they will continue to administer arbitrations. Each commission has introduced new rules and a new panel of arbitrators. Further, following in the footsteps of the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration (SCIA) (previously the South China sub-commission), in April this year the Shanghai sub-commission announced its new names, alternatively the “Shanghai International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission” or the “Shanghai International Arbitration Center” (SHIAC). SHIAC asserted that it would accept cases where the parties had agreed to refer disputes to CIETAC Shanghai.
However, there appears to be considerable doubt about whether such a designation would be a valid reference to arbitration administered by the Shanghai entity, particularly in light of a recent case before the Suzhou courts. Please click here to read more.
The coming into force of the New York Convention in Myanmar on 15 July 2013
As reported in an earlier post, on 16 April 2013 Myanmar deposited an instrument of accession with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, consenting to be bound by the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”). This is to report that the New York Convention will come into force in Myanmar on Monday 15 July 2013. Please click here to read more.
The new Seoul International Dispute Resolution Centre (IDRC) opened its doors in Korea last month, signalling the rising trend in international arbitration in Asia.
Attending the official launch were Herbert Smith Freehills’ disputes partners Tony Dymond, based in Seoul, and Justin D’Agostino, based in Hong Kong and Greater China, both of whom have specialist experience in international arbitration. Please click here to read the full post on our Arbitration blog which provides a short overview of the functionality of the IDRC.
CIETAC Beijing announced on 1 August that it had suspended the authorisation of its Shanghai and South China (Shenzhen) sub-commissions to accept and administer arbitrations. In response, the Shanghai and South China sub-commissions published a joint statement on 4 August. Please click here to read our post on our Arbitration blog.
After three months, and significant speculation, CIETAC Beijing has made an official announcement addressing the decision by its Shanghai and South China (Shenzhen) sub-commissions to split from the Beijing headquarters.
CIETAC has declared that, effective 1 August 2012, it has suspended authorisation to the Shanghai and South China sub-commissions to accept and administer arbitrations. Please click here to read our post on our Arbitration blog.
On 1 May 2012, the Shanghai sub-commission of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) announced that it has split from CIETAC Beijing, declaring itself an independent arbitral institution. Over the Chinese May Day holiday, CIETAC Shanghai also published a separate set of arbitration rules and established its own panel of arbitrators, separate from the panel published by CIETAC Beijing in May 2011. In response, CIETAC Beijing has rejected the Shanghai body’s move, accusing it of violating China’s Arbitration Law and of “seriously affecting parties’ exercise of their arbitration rights”.
Click here to access the announcement by CIETAC Beijing.
The China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (“CIETAC“) has recently published its revised Arbitration Rules, which come into force on 1 May 2012 (the “2012 Rules“). The rules are available on CIETAC’s website.
The 2012 Rules aim to address the increasing complexity of contemporary arbitration proceedings, to provide greater autonomy to parties and to codify and clarify CIETAC’s existing practice. The changes are designed to ensure that CIETAC remains competitive among other international arbitration centres, all of which have witnessed a rapid development in China-related business. Please click here to read our post on our Arbitration blog.