《国际仲裁简讯》2023年12月号 International Arbitration Newsletter Dec. 2023

全国首家外国仲裁机构在上海设立业务机构获准登记

2023年11月22日，上海市第十六届人大常委会第八次会议表决通过《上海市推进国际商事仲裁中心建设条例》（以下简称“《条例》”），这是全国首部国际商事仲裁中心建设的地方性法规。《条例》第十六条规定，经上海市司法行政部门登记并报国务院司法行政部门备案，境外知名仲裁及争议解决机构可以在本市设立业务机构，在国际商事、海事、投资等领域开展涉外仲裁业务。

2023年12月1日，《条例》正式施行。同日，上海市司法局作出了准予韩国大韩商事仲裁院上海中心（以下简称“韩仲上海中心”）登记的决定，并在规定期限内报司法部备案、赋码后颁发《境外仲裁机构业务机构登记证》。韩仲上海中心将是继首家国际组织仲裁机构业务机构（世界知识产权组织仲裁与调解上海中心）后，首家外国仲裁机构在上海设立的业务机构。

韩国大韩商事仲裁院成立至今已有五十余年历史，是韩国国内唯一的法定常设商事仲裁机构。韩仲上海中心经上海市司法局登记并报司法部备案后，可以就国际商事、海事、投资等领域发生的民商事争议开展涉外仲裁业务，业务范围包括：案件受理、庭审、听证、裁决；案件管理和服务；业务咨询、指引、培训、研讨。

First Foreign Arbitration Institution in China to Set Up Operations in Shanghai Approved for Registration

On November 22, 2023, the 8th session of the 16th Shanghai Municipal People's Congress Standing Committee voted to pass the "Regulations on the Promotion of the Construction of the Shanghai International Commercial Dispute Resolution Center" (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations") , which is the first local regulation in the country governing the establishment of an international commercial dispute resolution center. Article 16 of the "Regulations" stipulates that well-known overseas arbitration and dispute resolution institutions can establish business operations in the city, register with the municipal justice administrative department, and file records with the State Council's justice administrative department to engage in foreign-related arbitration business in international commercial, maritime, investment, and other fields.

On December 1, 2023, the "Regulations" officially took effect. On the same day, the Shanghai Municipal Bureau of Justice made a decision to register the Shanghai Center of Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (hereinafter referred to as the "Shanghai Center of KCAB") and, within the stipulated period, submitted the registration to the Ministry of Justice, obtaining a registration certificate for the business operation of an overseas arbitration institution. The Shanghai Center of KCAB will be the first business institution established in Shanghai by a foreign arbitration institution following the first international organization's arbitration institution (the World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration and Mediation Center in Shanghai).

The Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB), established more than 50 years ago, is the only statutory permanent commercial arbitration institution in Korea. After registering with the Shanghai Municipal Bureau of Justice and reporting to the Ministry of Justice for the record, the Shanghai Center of KCAB is able to carry out foreign-related arbitration business in respect of civil and commercial disputes arising in the fields of international commerce, maritime affairs, investment, etc. The scope of its business includes: acceptance of cases, hearings, hearings and awards; case management and services; and business consulting, guidance, training and seminars.

首例：上海法院依仲裁机构申请开具调查令

2023年11月22日，上海市第十六届人大常委会第八次会议表决通过了《上海市人民代表大会常务委员会关于修改〈上海市优化营商环境条例〉的决定》（以下简称“《决定》”）。据此，上海法院将建立支持仲裁案件审理开具调查令工作机制。为贯彻落实《上海市优化营商环境条例》（以下简称“《条例》”）精神，上海市高级人民法院第一时间出台《上海市高级人民法院关于开具调查令协助仲裁调查取证的办法（试行）》（以下简称“《办法》”），为上海市法院开具调查令协助仲裁调查取证工作开展提供指导。

2023年12月1日，即《决定》施行首日，上海市闵行区人民法院（以下简称“闵行区人民法院”）办理了首例法院依仲裁机构申请开具调查令案件，就仲裁机构因房地产买卖纠纷一案申请法院开具调查令，协助仲裁机构向闵行区自然资源确权登记事务中心调取案涉不动产登记簿信息。

闵行区人民法院办理的该例案件，是贯彻《条例》精神、落实《办法》要求，以司法支持仲裁，助力优化营商环境的积极实践，在全国范围内尚属首例。

First Case: Shanghai Court Issues Investigation Order on Application of Arbitration Institution

On November 22, 2023, the 8th session of the 16th Shanghai Municipal People's Congress Standing Committee voted to pass the "Decision of the Standing Committee of the Shanghai Municipal People's Congress on Amending the 'Shanghai Municipality Optimizing Business Environment Regulations'" (hereinafter referred to as the "Decision"). Accordingly, Shanghai courts will establish mechanisms to support the issuance of investigative orders for arbitration cases. In alignment with the spirit of the "Shanghai Municipality Optimizing Business Environment Regulations" (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations"), the Shanghai High People's Court promptly introduced the "Measures of the Shanghai High People's Court on Issuing Investigative Orders to Assist Arbitration Investigation and Evidence Collection (Trial Implementation)" (hereinafter referred to as the "Measures"), providing guidance for local courts in issuing investigative orders to assist in arbitration investigation and evidence collection.

On December 1, 2023, the Minhang District People's Court of Shanghai (hereinafter referred to as the "Minhang Court") processed the first case of a court issuing an investigative order upon an arbitration institution's application, marking the inaugural day of the implementation of the "Decision" .

The case handled by the Minhang Court exemplifies the active implementation of the "Regulations" and the requirements of the "Measures", demonstrating judicial support for arbitration and contributing to the proactive practice of optimizing the business environment. This instance remains the first of its kind nationwide in promoting this alignment between arbitration and judicial support, thereby optimizing the business environment.

香港高等法院首次向

厦门市破产法庭发出司法协助请求函

2023年11月23日，香港高等法院首次批准向厦门市破产法庭发出司法协助请求函。

香港高等法院原讼庭Linda Chan法官在香港与内地两地认可及协助破产程序合作机制下，结合本案情况，审查如下：

第一，案涉公司自2023年6月15日以来一直在债权人的自愿清算下，这属于最高法院认可和协助香港特别行政区破产程序试点方案中的“香港破产程序”；

第二，申请人是案涉公司的清算人；

第三，被寻求认可和协助的厦门市破产法庭，属于中国内地试点法院之一；

第四，所寻求的命令是承认清算人地位，并协助其履行公司清算人职责；

第五，案涉公司是一家香港公司，其主要中心利益一直在香港，超过了两地合作机制规定的六个月时间；

第六，公司的主要资产都是在中国内地设立的子公司，均在厦门市设立，办公场所位于厦门。

第七，修订后的并经本院批准的司法协助请求函详细列明清算人职责；拟向厦门破产法庭寻求认可和协助其履行清算人的职责；以及清算人需要控制4家子公司的事实和理由。

第八，根据本案的情况和事实，清算人有必要寻求厦门市破产法庭的认可和协助，以便能够控制案涉公司的4家子公司。

综上，结合本案情况，香港高等法院有必要行使自由裁量权，请求厦门市破产法庭承认债权人自愿清算公司并协助清算人按照司法协助请求函中规定的条款提供协助。

High Court of Hong Kong Issues First Judicial Assistance Request Letter to Xiamen Bankruptcy Court

On 23 November 2023, the High Court of Hong Kong granted for the first time a letter of request for judicial assistance to the Xiamen Bankruptcy Court.

The Court of First Instance of the High Court of Hong Kong, examined the circumstances of the case under the co-operation mechanism for recognising and assisting insolvency proceedings between Hong Kong and the China as follows:

First, the company in question had been in creditors' voluntary liquidation since 15 June 2023, which was a "Hong Kong insolvency proceeding" under the Supreme Court's Pilot Scheme on Recognition and Assistance in Bankruptcy Proceedings in the Hong Kong;

Secondly, the applicant was the liquidator of the company in question;

Thirdly, the Xiamen Bankruptcy Court, whose recognition and assistance was sought, was one of the pilot courts in China;

Fourthly, the order sought was to recognise the liquidator's status and to assist him in the performance of his duties as liquidator of the company;

Fifthly, the company in question was a Hong Kong company and its main central interests had been in Hong Kong for more than the six months required under the BIPO mechanism;

Sixthly, the principal assets of the company were subsidiaries established in China, all of which were set up in Xiamen with their offices located in Xiamen.

Seventh, the MLA request letter, as amended and approved by the Court, sets out in detail the duties of the liquidator; the proposed approach to the Xiamen Bankruptcy Court to seek recognition and assistance in discharging its duties as liquidator; and the facts and reasons why the liquidator needs to take control of the four subsidiaries.

Eighth, under the circumstances and facts of this case, it was necessary for the liquidator to seek the approval and assistance of the Xiamen Bankruptcy Court in order to be able to take control of the four subsidiaries of the company in question.

In summary, in the circumstances of this case, it was necessary for the High Court of Hong Kong to exercise its discretion to request the Xiamen Bankruptcy Court to recognise the creditor's voluntary liquidation of the company and to assist the liquidator to provide assistance in accordance with the terms set out in the letter of request for judicial assistance.

上海市第二中级人民法院：

以《仲裁法》第五十八条第一款事由申请撤销仲裁调解书或根据和解协议作出的仲裁裁决，不予支持，但违背社会公共利益的除外

法律依据：

《中华人民共和国仲裁法》

第五十八条

第五十八条当事人提出证据证明裁决有下列情形之一的，可以向仲裁委员会所在地的中级人民法院申请撤销裁决:

（一）没有仲裁协议的；

（二）裁决的事项不属于仲裁协议的范围或者仲裁委员会无权仲裁的；

（三）仲裁庭的组成或者仲裁的程序违反法定程序的；

（四）裁决所根据的证据是伪造的；

（五）对方当事人隐瞒了足以影响公正裁决的证据的；

（六）仲裁员在仲裁该案时有索贿受贿，徇私舞弊，枉法裁决行为的。

人民法院经组成合议庭审查核实裁决有前款规定情形之一的，应当裁定撤销。

人民法院认定该裁决违背社会公共利益的，应当裁定撤销。

案件简介：

2022年3月，太平国发禾和（北京）投资管理有限公司（以下简称“太平国发公司”）以杭州百佳医院管理有限公司（以下简称“百佳公司”）、苏某、林某、徐某、翁某、林某、杨某（以下合称“七申请人”）为被申请人，向上海国际经济贸易仲裁委员会（上海国际仲裁中心）（以下简称“上海贸仲”）提请仲裁并被立案受理。2022年10月12日，上海贸仲秘书处收到了太平国发公司与七申请人分别提交的申请及《和解协议》，请求上海贸仲主任指定一名仲裁员进行书面审理。2022年11月3日，仲裁庭作出〔2022〕沪贸仲裁字第1236号仲裁裁决（以下简称“仲裁裁决”）。

2023年3月2日，七申请人向上海市第二中级人民法院（以下简称“法院”）申请撤销仲裁裁决，七申请人认为：《增资扩股协议》约定了百佳公司（目标公司）的回购义务，仲裁裁决也裁决百佳公司履行回购义务向太平国发公司支付股权回购款，违反了我国公司法的强制性规定，应属无效。仲裁裁决可能损害百佳公司其他股东和公司债权人的利益，破坏正常的市场交易秩序，违背了社会公共利益，应予撤销。

太平国发公司辩称：《增资扩股协议》约定百佳公司回购股权，不违反法律法规的强制性规定，合法有效，仲裁裁决系根据双方申请按照《和解协议》作出，不违背社会公共利益，不应撤销。

法院观点：

关于根据当事人之间的和解协议作出的仲裁裁决能否申请撤销的问题，法院从如下几个方面进行论述：

第一，根据当事人之间的和解协议作出的仲裁裁决与仲裁调解书性质相同，法院将该类仲裁裁决与仲裁调解书并列规定，并和一般的仲裁裁决进行了明确区分。

第二，《中华人民共和国仲裁法》（以下简称“《仲裁法》”）第五十八条第一款规定的“裁决”并未明确包括仲裁调解书和根据当事人之间的和解协议作出的仲裁裁决。法院对仲裁司法监督实行有限监督原则，在法律未将仲裁调解书和根据当事人之间的和解协议作出的仲裁裁决纳入该条款审查范围的情况下，法院不宜超越法律规定进行审查。

第三，结合《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》与《仲裁法》的相关规定，当事人申请撤销仲裁裁决的事由与当事人申请不予执行仲裁裁决的事由基本一致。再根据《最高人民法院关于人民法院办理仲裁裁决执行案件若干问题的规定》第十七条的规定，被执行人申请不予执行仲裁调解书或者根据当事人之间的和解协议、调解协议作出的仲裁裁决，人民法院不予支持，但该仲裁调解书或者仲裁裁决违背社会公共利益的除外。

因此，当事人以《仲裁法》第五十八条第一款的事由申请撤销仲裁调解书或者根据当事人之间的和解协议作出的仲裁裁决，人民法院无需进行审查，直接不予支持，但当事人以违背社会公共利益为由申请撤销仲裁调解书或者根据当事人之间的和解协议作出的仲裁裁决，人民法院应当就仲裁调解书或者根据当事人之间的和解协议作出的仲裁裁决是否违背社会公共利益进行审查，并作出认定。

关于案涉裁决是否违背社会公共利益的问题。一方面，我国公司法并未禁止目标公司回购股权，相反，我国公司法就公司回购股权进行了专门规定，公司在满足一定的条件并履行相应程序后可以回购股权。百佳公司是否符合回购的条件，属于实体审理问题，不属于本院司法审查的范畴。另一方面，即使百佳公司不符合回购的条件，则案涉合同约定的股权回购条款无效，但这也仅涉及太平国发公司与百佳公司的利益，与社会公共利益无涉。因此，案涉裁决并不违背社会公共利益，七申请人以此为由申请撤销仲裁裁决，本院不予支持。

综上，上海市第二中级人民法院，依照《中华人民共和国仲裁法》第五十八条及第六十条规定，裁定驳回申请人杭州百佳医院管理有限公司、苏某、林某、徐某、翁某、林某、杨某撤销〔2022〕沪贸仲裁字第1236号仲裁裁决的申请。

Shanghai Second Intermediate People's Court:

An application to set aside an arbitration conciliation letter or an arbitral award made under a settlement agreement on the grounds of article 58, paragraph 1, of the Arbitration Law shall not be supported, except where it is in violation of the public interest

Legal Basis:

"The 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 Deion：

In March 2022, Taipingguofa Hehe (Beijing) Investment Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Taipingguofa Company") filed for arbitration with the Shanghai International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (Shanghai International Arbitration Center) (hereinafter referred to as "Shanghai CIETAC") against Hangzhou Baijia Hospital Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Baijia Company"), Su, Lin, Xu, Weng, Lin, Yang (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Seven Applicants"). On October 12, 2022, the Shanghai CIETAC Secretariat received separate applications and a "Settlement Agreement" from Taipingguofa Company and the Seven Applicants, requesting the Director of Shanghai CIETAC to appoint an arbitrator for a written hearing. On November 3, 2022, the arbitration tribunal rendered [2022] No. 1236 HMTAC Arbitration Ruling (hereinafter referred to as the "Arbitration Ruling").

On March 2, 2023, the Seven Applicants applied to the Shanghai Second Intermediate People's Court (hereinafter referred to as the "Court") to annul the Arbitration Ruling. They argued that the "Capital Increase and Share Expansion Agreement" stipulated Baijia Company's (the target company) repurchase obligation, and the Arbitration Ruling, which ordered Baijia Company to fulfill the repurchase obligation and pay Taipingguofa Company for share repurchase, violated mandatory provisions of Company Law, thus rendering it invalid. They claimed that the Arbitration Ruling might harm the interests of other shareholders and creditors of Baijia Company, disrupt normal market transactions, and contravene public interests, shall be set aside.

Taipingguofa Company countered, asserting that the "Capital Increase and Share Expansion Agreement" established Baijia Company's right to repurchase shares, compliant with legal regulations, and the arbitration ruling was based on mutual application in accordance with the "Settlement Agreement," not conflicting with public interests, thus should not be set aside.

Court’s View:

Regarding whether an arbitration ruling based on a settlement agreement between the parties can be annulled, the court offered the following points:

Firstly, arbitration rulings based on settlement agreements between parties bear the same nature as arbitration mediation agreements. The court explicitly distinguishes this category of arbitration rulings from general arbitration rulings.

Secondly, Article 58, paragraph 1 of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the "Arbitration Law") does not expressly encompass arbitration mediation agreements or arbitration rulings based on settlement agreements between parties. Considering the principle of limited judicial review in arbitration judicial supervision, in cases where the law doesn't specify the inclusion of arbitration mediation agreements or arbitration rulings based on settlement agreements between parties, the court should not exceed legal provisions to conduct reviews.

Thirdly, aligning with relevant provisions in the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and the Arbitration Law, the grounds for applying to annul an arbitration ruling by the parties largely coincide with those for refusing to enforce an arbitration ruling. According to Article 17 of the Supreme People's Court's provisions on handling enforcement cases of arbitration rulings, if the arbitration mediation agreement or arbitration ruling based on a settlement agreement or mediation agreement violates public interests, the court will not support it.

Therefore, when a party applies for the annulment of an arbitration mediation agreement or an arbitration ruling based on a settlement agreement between the parties under Article 58, paragraph 1 of the Arbitration Law, the court should not review it directly. However, if a party claims that it violates public interests, the court should examine whether the arbitration mediation agreement or arbitration ruling based on the settlement agreement between the parties indeed contravenes public interests and make a determination.

Regarding whether the involved ruling violates public interests, on one hand, China's Company Law does not prohibit target companies from repurchasing shares; instead, it provides specific provisions governing such repurchases. Whether Baijia Company meets the conditions for repurchase is a substantive issue and lies beyond the scope of this court's judicial review. On the other hand, even if Baijia Company fails to meet the repurchase conditions, the contractual clause on share repurchase in question only affects the interests of Taipingguofa Company and Baijia Company, not public interests. Therefore, the involved ruling does not violate public interests. The Seven Applicants' application for annulment of the arbitration ruling based on this reason lacks support from this court.

In conclusion, in accordance with Articles 58 and 60 of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China, the Second Intermediate People's Court of Shanghai ruled to reject the application by Hangzhou Baijia Hospital Management Co., Ltd., Su, Lin, Xu, Weng, Lin, Yang to annul [2022] No. 1236 HMTAC Arbitration Ruling.

加拿大安大略省高等法院：

首度承认与执行厦门仲裁委员会裁决

案情简介：

2020年2月6日，厦门国贸集团股份有限公司（以下简称“申请人”）与加拿大LinkGlobal Food Inc.公司（以下简称“被申请人”）签订了一份买卖合同（以下简称“合同”），约定申请人向被申请人购买防护口罩，金额高达532,224.00美元。合同第6条为仲裁条款，约定争议提交厦门仲裁委员会仲裁解决。合同准据法适用中国法。

2021 年 1 月 13 日，申请人根据合同第 6 条向厦门仲裁委对被申请人提起仲裁，主张被申请人销售的防护口罩过期不能使用，并要求被申请人退还购买口罩的价款并赔偿由此产生的各种费用。仲裁庭于 2021 年 9 月 1 日做出一致裁决（以下简称“仲裁裁决”），裁决被申请人应在仲裁裁决送达后 10 天内向申请人退还货款及利息 、关税和运费、律师费、仲裁费等等。仲裁裁决作出后，被申请人既未履行仲裁裁决，也未申请撤销仲裁裁决。

2022年10月26日，申请人向加拿大安大略省高等法院（以下简称“安大略省高等法院”）申请承认与执行仲裁裁决。安大略省高等法院确定了提交申请、答辩申请和交叉质询等的各种期限，并最终确定2023年11月15日为开庭时间，被申请人均未遵守上述期限，并申请延期。理由是被申请人在中国仲裁程序的代理人安律师曾向其提起仲裁过程及仲裁程序存在瑕疵，被申请人拟据此提出不予承认与执行的抗辩。但因安律师不愿意就此提供证人证言，被申请人的加拿大律师建议被申请人在中国延聘另一中国律师，对安律师采取诉讼程序，以迫使其提供证据并传唤其作为证人提供证言。

法院观点：

被申请人提出的延期审理请求应予驳回。

首先，尽管被申请人知道本案申请已将近一年，但目前被申请人并没有提出有效证据支持其不予执行裁决的理由。对于这种不尽责的行为，被申请人没有做出任何解释。被申请人在本案中的行为损害了两个因素：司法需要有序地处理民事诉讼程序以及司法需要有效地执行法院命令（这里指的是排期令）。

其次，被申请人律师为支持延期请求而提交的书面证词主要是基于传闻。由于被申请人没有提供任何证据，应得出不利的推论。

再次，虽然被申请人律师希望延期开庭以获取某些证据来提出抗辩。但被申请人律师提出的不予执行裁决的大多数理由都是厦门仲裁委已经受理、审议并作出裁决的实体性问题。仲裁裁决没有证据表明各方在参加仲裁庭审方面没有受到同等对待。被申请人在庭审上提出的关于厦门仲裁委缺乏独立性的指控纯属猜测。

鉴于延期将造成重大延误，而且被申请人能否迫使安律师在本案程序中提供证据存在较大不确定性，延误严重影响司法公正，争议的及时解决符合公共利益。不执行时限会使当事人的合法期望落空。被申请人在拖延本案申请方面存在不当利益。被申请人提出的延期请求、为支持延期请求而在最后一刻提交的有限证据，以及在裁决作出两年多、申请排期将近一年之后，被申请人似乎仍不知道其抗辩的主要内容。这表明被申请人是在竭力逃避其在裁决中的付款义务。

综上，加拿大安大略省高等法院裁定驳回被申请人的延期申请，准予承认与执行厦门仲裁委仲裁裁决。

Ontario Superior Court of Justice: First Recognition and Enforcement of Xiamen Arbitration Commission Award

Case Deion：

On February 6, 2020, Xiamen Guomao Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Applicant") and Canada's LinkGlobal Food Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Respondent") signed a sales contract (hereinafter referred to as the "Contract"), providing that the Applicant would purchase protective masks from the Respondent for the purchase price of US $532,224.00. Article 6 of the Contract was an arbitration clause, agreeing that disputes would be submitted to the Xiamen Arbitration Commission for arbitration settlement. The applicable law of the contract was Chinese law.

On January 13, 2021, the Applicant initiated arbitration against the Respondent with the Xiamen Arbitration Commission, pursuant to Article 6 of the contract, claiming that the protective masks sold by the Respondent had expired and were unusable. The Applicant demanded a refund for the purchase price of the masks and compensation for various expenses incurred. On September 1, 2021, the arbitral tribunal rendered a unanimous decision (hereinafter referred to as the "Arbitration Award"), ordering the respondent to refund the purchase price, along with interest, customs duties, shipping costs, legal fees, arbitration expenses, etc., within 10 days of the service of the Arbitration Award. However, the respondent neither complied with the Arbitration Award nor applied for its annulment.

On October 26, 2022, the Applicant applied to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (hereinafter referred to as the "Ontario Superior Court") for the recognition and enforcement of the Arbitration Award. The Ontario Superior Court set various deadlines for submissions, responses, and cross-examinations, and eventually scheduled November 15, 2023, as the trial date. The Respondent failed to adhere to these deadlines and sought an extension. The reason cited was that the Respondent's counsel, Lawyer An, had highlighted flaws in the arbitration process and procedure, intending to use this as a defense against recognition and enforcement. However, due to Lawyer An's reluctance to provide witness testimony on this matter, the Respondent's Canadian counsel suggested engaging another Chinese lawyer in China to litigate against Lawyer An, compelling the production of evidence and summoning him as a witness.

Court’s View：

The Respondent's request for an adjournment is denied.

First, even though the Respondent has known about this Application for almost a year, it does not currently have evidentiary support for any valid ground to oppose the enforcement of the Arbitration Award. No explanation has been provided for this lack of diligence. The conduct of the Respondent in this case also undermines two of the factors listed above: the need of the administration of justice to orderly process civil proceedings, and the need of the administration of justice to effectively enforce court orders, here, scheduling orders.

Second, the affidavits of Respondent's counsel filed in support of the request for an adjournment are largely based on hearsay. In the absence of any evidence from the Respondent, an adverse inference should be drawn.

Thirdly, although the Respondent's counsel wished to adjourn the hearing in order to obtain certain evidence to raise defences. However, most of the grounds for non-enforcement of the award raised by the respondent's counsel were substantive issues that had already been accepted, considered and decided by the Xiamen Arbitration Commission. There was no evidence in the arbitral award that the parties had not been treated equally in terms of their participation in the arbitral tribunal hearings. The allegations made by the Respondent at the hearing that the Xiamen Arbitration Commission lacked independence were purely speculative.

Given that the extension will cause significant delays and the uncertainty regarding the respondent's ability to compel Lawyer An to provide evidence in this proceeding. Delay has an impact on the administration of justice. There is a strong public interest in promoting the timely resolution of disputes. Respondent has an undue interest in delaying this application. Failure to enforce timelines frustrate the legitimate expectations of the parties. The Respondent's request for an adjournment, the limited and last-minute evidence filed in support of the request, and the fact that more than two years after the Arbitration Award was delivered and almost one year after the Application was scheduled the Respondent does not appear to know what its defence is going to be, suggest a party who is grasping at straws to avoid its payment obligations under the Award.

In conclusion, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled in the Respondent's application for an extension of time should be rejected and the recognition and enforcement of the Xiamen Arbitration Commission's Arbitration Award should be granted.

编 委

本简讯由《中伦文德国际业务委员会》编制，

仅供参考。

This Newsletter is produced by ZLWD International Business Committee and for your reference only.

编委：林威 李政明 段庆喜 王莺 郭泠泠 李宇明

宁宁 毛靖雅 姚君妍

Editorial Board: Wei LIN, Zhengming LI, Philip DUAN,

Ellen WANG, Lingling GUO,Yuming LI, Ning NING,

Jingya MAO, Junyan YAO

刊载信息均来源于公开渠道。

All Information published in this Newsletter is from open source.

如您有任何建议或需了解更多信息，请同我们联系。

If you have any suggestion or need more information, please contact us.