In Wicor Holding A.G. v. Taizhou Haopu Investments Limited (Civil Action (2015) Tai Zhong Shang Zhong Shen Zi No. 00004), the Taizhou Intermediate People’s Court refused to enforce an ICC award on the ground of public policy. Facts Taizhou Haopu Investment Limited (“Haopu“) entered into a joint venture agreement (“JVA“) with Wicor Holding A.G. (“Wicor“) in 1997, establishing a joint venture company (“JV“). The parties agreed in the JVA to have their disputes arbitrated “in accordance with ICC mediation and arbitration rules“. The JVA also provided that “if one party
A Hong Kong court has refused to grant an application to set aside its own order granting leave to enforce an arbitral award, thereby reinforcing the arbitration-friendly approach of Hong Kong courts and clarifying the restricted scope of the courts’ review of an arbitral award rendered in a Member State of the New York Convention. In the original arbitral proceedings, an arbitral tribunal seated in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, had ordered C, the respondent in arbitration, to pay T, the claimant, a sum as damages for breach of contract. C had
The Hong Kong Court of First Instance has refused an application to set aside an award made in an ICC arbitration seated in Hong Kong, on public policy grounds, rejecting an argument that it should be set aside because the subject matter was res judicata. The dispute in Shanghai Fusheng Soya-Food Co Ltd v Pulmuone Holdings Co. Ltd arose under a joint venture agreement, which was governed by the law of the PRC with arbitration to be seated in Hong Kong. The applicant initially commenced proceedings in the Shanghai No.
The Singapore High Court has confirmed the principle an allegation of fraud in a civil matter will be considered on the balance of probabilities, but that the nature of the evidence to enable a finding to be made should be more persuasive or strong than that required for a finding of, for example, negligence. In Beijing Sinozonto Mining Investment Co Ltd v Goldenray Consortium (Singapore) Pte Ltd  1 SLR 814, the Singapore High Court considered a challenge under s31(4)(b) of the Singapore International Arbitration Act to the enforcement of