On September 5, 2024, the Supreme People's Court (“SPC”) released their “Typical Cases of Supporting Hong Kong Arbitration”. Two JunHe cases were honored among the six selected cases, demonstrating the firm’s strength in cross-border dispute resolution, especially in international arbitration. The cases were for the recognition and enforcement of a Hong Kong arbitral award by company W and the German company SE. 

These two cases reflect the SPC's stance of supporting arbitration in Hong Kong in accordance with the law and promoting the development of international arbitration. JunHe’s international arbitration team provides exceptional expertise, efficient services and strong cross-border enforcement to its clients in complex cross-border commercial disputes and has become a mainstay in both domestic and international arbitration.

Summary of the Two Selected Cases Undertaken by JunHe

The application for the recognition and enforcement of a Hong Kong arbitral award by company W

——Accurately applied Hong Kong laws to decide that a document referred to in a contract constituted a valid arbitration agreement

On October 20, 2008, company W entered into a supply agreement with an industrial and trading company in Ningde, agreeing that disputes shall be arbitrated by the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC). The two companies then entered into a tripartite amendment agreement with a charcoal company to specify the terms and conditions on the new and amended clauses and stated that the unamended clauses shall be governed by the supply agreement. As a result of the breach of the amendment agreement by the Ningde company and the charcoal company, company W applied to the HKIAC for arbitration and was granted multiple arbitral awards. Company W applied to the Intermediate People's Court of Nanping City, Fujian Province for the recognition and enforcement of such awards, but the charcoal company argued that the amendment agreement was silent on the arbitration clause and that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties. The court held that the reference to the supply agreement in the amendment agreement indicated that the charcoal company had manifested its intention to resolve disputes in accordance with the arbitration clause in the supply agreement. The court decided that according to the relevant provisions of the Arbitration Ordinance that the charcoal company had entered into a valid arbitration agreement with company W and that the concerned arbitral awards should be recognized and enforced. This case provides guidelines for the People's Courts to determine the validity of arbitration clauses according to Hong Kong laws during recognition and enforcement. The core issue in this case was whether there was a valid arbitration agreement between the parties. The court determined that the arbitration agreement should be governed by Hong Kong laws and found that the provisions of the Arbitration Ordinance should apply. The court also analyzed whether the arbitration agreement met the “in writing” requirement. 

JunHe acted on behalf of company W throughout the recognition and enforcement proceedings and assisted the applicant in receiving more than RMB 100 million in enforcement. This case was also selected as one of the Beijing Lawyers Association's Outstanding Cases of Foreign-related Legal Services. The JunHe partners in charge of this case were ZHENG, Yanli (Leanne), YE, Li and LIU, Zhen.

The application for the recognition and enforcement of a Hong Kong arbitral award by the German company SE and other companies

——Interpreted arbitration rules to recognize and enforce arbitral awards made by foreign arbitral institutions in Hong Kong

The German company SE and other companies conducted business with company J. The parties agreed that any dispute shall be submitted to the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) for arbitration in Hong Kong in accordance with the ICC Arbitration Rules. Company SE applied for arbitration and was granted a final arbitral award. It then applied to the Beijing No. 4 Intermediate People's Court for recognition and enforcement of the award. Company J objected on the grounds that the arbitration proceedings were inconsistent with the agreement of the parties and jeopardized public interest. The court held that the award was a Hong Kong arbitral award and that the procedure for the appointment of the presiding arbitrator did not violate the rules. The court also held that the arbitral tribunal's acceptance of the late submission did not violate the rules or the agreement, and the dispute did not concern public security, therefore the award should be recognized and enforced. This case reaffirms autonomy in arbitration proceedings and clarifies that awards made by the ICC International Court of Arbitration in Hong Kong are Hong Kong awards. The Hong Kong arbitral awards may be enforced in mainland China in accordance with the Arrangement Concerning Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, which is of great significance to the improvement of Hong Kong’s status as a hub for international arbitration in the Asia-Pacific region.

The German company received more than RMB 150 million under the award rendered by the ICC International Court of Arbitration through the enforcement procedures. The JunHe team was highly recognized by the client for their professional and efficient legal services.

This case was handled by JunHe partner/counsel DONG, Xiao (Arthur) and YUAN, Yuheng (Alex).