If a party subject to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards or foreign judgments (including awards and judgments rendered in Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan), is domiciled or its property is in mainland China, it raises a problem due to the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards and foreign judgments in China. Recently, the Beijing Fourth Intermediate People’s Court (“BFIPC”) reported its work on “Enforcement Cases involving the Applications for Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and Foreign Judgments” and released a list of the top ten landmark cases. The list highlights the work done in recognizing and enforcing foreign arbitral awards and foreign judgments in an efficient and fair manner. Three JunHe cases were honored among the top ten landmark cases: an application for the recognition and enforcement of a civil judgment of the Supreme Court of Korea of an engineering company v. a trading company, an application for the recognition and enforcement of an ICC Arbitral Award made in Hong Kong, and an application for the recognition and enforcement of an ordinance made by the Paris Commercial Court in the case of a limited company v. Wu.

The release of these top ten landmark cases reflects China’s adaptation to the international trend of facilitating the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards and foreign judgments in  judicial practice, and its efforts to improve international cooperation, openness and integration in respect to the judicial system. It provides an important reference for other Chinese judicial agencies in dispute resolution and law enforcement in foreign-related commercial cases.

Dispute resolution has been a core area of practice throughout the development of JunHe and since its inception, the firm has been renowned for its focus on foreign-related legal services. Its dispute resolution team consists of lawyers with an in-depth understanding of the Chinese legal system and judicial practice. In recent years, JunHe has added many talented individuals in the area of international arbitration and has built its reputation in this field far and wide. JunHe’s dispute resolution team brings together leading experts in their fields; our partners regularly serve as arbitrators with the world’s most prestigious arbitration institutions and have significant experience in international commercial arbitration.  Our dispute resolution team includes lawyers who are qualified to practice concurrently in China as well as in the U.S., Hong Kong and other jurisdictions and they work in multiple languages including Chinese, English, French and Japanese.  We provide clients with high quality dispute resolution services that span borders, languages and industries. Due to our outstanding performance in dispute resolution, our team has played an important role in many complex and influential cases, becoming the preferred law firm for leading domestic enterprises and well-known multinational corporations. Our dispute resolution team is consistently recognized by leading law firm ratings agencies (including Chambers Asia-Pacific, Asia Pacific Legal 500, Asia Law & Practice, Who’s Who Legal, Benchmark Litigation, ALB and IAM) as a “Band 1” or “Top-tier Recommendation” law firm in the area of dispute resolution in mainland China.

The selection of these top ten landmark cases recognizes JunHe’s excellence and its outstanding talent in the area of dispute resolution. It also demonstrates the openness and integration of the Chinese judicial system and related international cooperation. A pioneer in legal circles, JunHe is committed to devoting its expertise to the development of China’s legal profession.

Three Landmark Cases on which JunHe Advised:

An application for the Recognition and Enforcement of a Civil Judgment of the Supreme Court of Korea in the Case of an Engineering Company v. a Trading Company

-this was the first ever legally effective foreign judgment on intellectual property rights to be recognized and enforced in China

This was the first time that a legally effective foreign judgment on intellectual property rights was recognized and enforced in China. Due to the lack of a relevant international treaty between China and Korea, our lawyers experienced a variety of difficulties and challenges. This included the difficulty of confirming and verifying judicial documents rendered in Korea, the identification of relevant Korean laws and judicial regulations, whether there were any precedents in Korea for recognizing and enforcing effective Chinese judgments, and whether the principle of reciprocity was applicable legally and factually. Other hurdles included whether there was a procedural defect, whether the service of process was conducted in compliance with the law, and whether there were other complex legal issues that would have adverse effects, such as the newly enacted jurisdiction rules. JunHe selected a team consisting of partners and attorneys from various practice groups. The team members worked with each other, using their professional knowledge and experience to solve the difficulties and problems encountered one by one. The favorable judgment in this case reflects China’s general trend to actively participate in international judicial cooperation and promote judicial reform. It also demonstrates the confident and positive attitude of the Chinese courts in participating in international judicial communications and dealing with intellectual property matters, which is conducive to promoting the confidence of foreign enterprises in investing and operating in China. At the beginning of the trial, BFIPC promptly granted the application filed by JunHe’s team for an order of asset preservation of the underlying trademark in question, based on the evidence and security that the JunHe team had presented, thereby preventing the client from irreparable damages. The issue of this order reflects the professional experience of JunHe’s team, and the positive attitude of the Chinese court in protecting the legitimate rights and interests of the party to the case according to the law. The judgment on this case will certainly set a favorable precedent for Korean courts to apply the principle of factual reciprocity in the future when recognizing and enforcing similar effective judgments rendered by Chinese courts and will also foster the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese enterprises in Korea according to local laws. The Chinese court’s recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments on intellectual property rights will also play a positive role in the protection of the intellectual property rights of Chinese enterprises in foreign jurisdictions.

XIAO, Wei, WANG, Zhaolin (Johnson), SUN, Tao, YE, Zhenyong and WEI, Yuming

A Company Filed an Application for the Recognition and Enforcement of an ICC Arbitral Award made in Hong Kong

- this was the first ICC arbitral award made in Hong Kong to be recognized by BFIPC

A dispute over a Share Purchase Agreement and a Fund Escrow Agreement entered by and between a company and an international group and an international group capital company was heard by the International Chamber of Commerce International Court of Arbitration (ICC), and an arbitral award was made in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in 2015. In accordance with Article 1 of the Arrangement of the Supreme People’s Court for the Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the company filed an application with BFIPC for the recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award made by ICC in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. After the hearing,  BFIPC supported the company’s application for the recognition and enforcement of the entire arbitral award.

This case was the first ICC arbitral award made in Hong Kong that was recognized in BFIPC since its establishment, with the amount of the subject matter as high as USD 475 million. When handling this case, BFIPC attached great importance to both the substance and the procedure, affirmed the absolute validity of the effective arbitral award, found the basis for payment to be subject to an effective arbitral award in the contract, and properly handled the obligation of the non-arbitral award parties to assist in the enforcement. This case effectively safeguarded the validity of the effective arbitral award and the credibility of the arbitration system and ensured the effective implementation of the Arrangement of the Supreme People’s Court for the Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. BFIPC’s ruling also confirmed that in China’s judicial practice, the place of arbitration is used to identify foreign or Hong Kong arbitral awards, rather than the arbitration institution. In this case, BFIPC enforced the Hong Kong arbitral award after recognition and the claimant received the enforcement amount in full.

Partner Involved: HU, Nan

A Limited Company and Wu Filed an Application for the Recognition and Enforcement of an Ordinance Made by the Paris Commercial Court, France

- this was the first time that a Chinese court approved an application for property preservation during the judicial review of an application for the recognition and enforcement of general foreign commercial judgments

At the end of 2020, BFIPC ruled on an Ordinance made by the Paris Commercial Court, France (“Paris Commercial Court”) on June 3, 2015, approving a Settlement Agreement and giving such Settlement Agreement enforceability (the “Ordinance”). The amount involved was more than USD 46 million. In this case, an application for property preservation was filed at the beginning of the review of the recognition and enforcement of the foreign judgment, when there were no agreements, provisions or effective precedents that allowed property preservation during the review period of the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in the Treaty Between the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of France on Judicial Assistance in Civil and Commercial Matters, the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China and other relevant judicial practices in China. JunHe’s team communicated fully with BFIPC, and finally persuaded BFIPC to make a civil ruling on August 10, 2017. The ruling approved the application filed by the claimant for property preservation and ruled that the property and other interests of the respondent, Mr. W, be attached, under judicial seizure and frozen to the extent of the amount of the judgment for which an application was filed by the claimant for recognition and enforcement. This was the first time that a Chinese court has approved the application for property preservation during a judicial review of the application for the recognition and enforcement of general foreign commercial judgments. This was a significant breakthrough and provides an important reference for the handling of similar judicial assistance cases. 

Partners Involved: ZHANG, Ying, YE, Zhenyong and DI, Qing

Other Cases where an Application was Filed with BFIPC for the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and Foreign Judgments

JunHe Assists a German Client in its Successful Recognition and Enforcement of an RMB 150 Million ICC Arbitral Award in BFIPC

-the first batch of cases where preservation measures were approved to recognize and enforce arbitral awards made in Hong Kong pursuant to the Supplemental Arrangement of the Supreme People's Court for the Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region that came into force on November 27, 2020.

Three subsidiaries of a German group company as the claimant initiated an arbitration before the ICC to solve a series of contract disputes between itself and a domestic purchaser (the “Respondent”). The venue of arbitration was in Hong Kong. In 2020, the arbitration tribunal rendered three arbitral awards, ruling that the Respondent pay the German client compensation in an amount of approximately RMB 150 million.

JunHe acted on behalf of the German client and initiated legal proceedings before BFIPC to file an application for the recognition and enforcement of the three foreign arbitral awards. While filing the case with BFIPC, JunHe, on behalf of the client fully froze several bank accounts and equity in multiple subsidiaries of the Respondent through property preservation measures, and successfully won the first and second instance of the jurisdictional objection raised by the Respondent. In response to JunHe’s application for recognition of the arbitral awards, the Respondent put forward several defenses. After the hearing, BFIPC supported the claimant and ruled that the three ICC arbitral awards be recognized. It only took three months from the filing of the enforcement proceedings to the client’s receipt of the first instalment of RMB 60 million. The German client has received the full settlement amount of approximately RMB 150 million.

Leading Partner: DONG, Xiao (Arthur)

JunHe Represented a Renowned South Korean Multinational Company in Filing an Application with BFIPC for the Recognition and Enforcement of an SIAC Arbitral Award

The amount of enforcement requested was approximately RMB 70 million. The opposite party put forward multiple defenses including that the arbitration proceedings were in breach of the arbitration rules, the amount was more than the arbitral award, the results of the award were wrong, and that the enforcement of the arbitral award would be against the public interest. Through JunHe’s efforts, the court eventually dismissed all of the opposite parties defense and ruled that the arbitral award be recognized and enforced. During the application for the recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award, the opposite party entered bankruptcy liquidation procedures. JunHe continued to represent the client in the bankruptcy liquidation procedure, and assisted the client in obtaining its share of the bankrupt property that it was entitled to according to the arbitral award.

Leading Partner: DONG, Xiao (Arthur)