In the realm of arbitration, the principle of res judicata serves, among its many important purposes, to safeguard the finality and enforceability of arbitral awards. Res judicata has also been firmly established in the PRC Arbitral Law, but recent judicial decisions evidence its flexibility and intricacies.More
2024-07-12ARTICLES ZUO Tianyu, GUO Shuai, LI Jiarong Majority Rule is a fundamental principle in modern corporate governance, reflecting the democratic ethos of minority shareholders being bound by the majority in corporate law. While this ethos can enhance decision-making efficiency, it also engenders practical concerns about how best to protect the interests of minority shareholders.More
Foshan Intermediate People’s Court (2021) Yue 06 Xie Wai Ren No.1
[Recognition of a foreign arbitral award concerning an international purchase contract and involving issues of representation powers and lack of due notice]More
Last year, China amended its Civil Procedure Law. On 1 January 2024, the amended Civil Procedure Law was implemented. The amended Civil Procedure Law elevated the principle of forum non conveniens to a legal provision for the first time, and further refined the rules for handling cases under that principle.
Over the past decade, Chinese courts have rarely applied the principle of forum non conveniens due to the strict criteria for its application. Judges have also tended to adopt a more cautious approach when deciding whether a case is of interest to Chinese citizens, enterprises, and other organizations. This article will discuss the development and future trend of the doctrine of forum non conveniens in China in light of this historical backdrop, both in terms of its evolution and application.More
In the case of Reliance Infrastructure Limited v. Shanghai Electric Group Co., Ltd. [2024] SGHC(I) 3, the Singapore International Commercial Court ("SICC") dismissed Reliance Infrastructure Limited ("Reliance Infra")'s application for revocation of an arbitral award. Reliance Infra had argued, inter alia, that (a) the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”) lacked jurisdiction’ (b) the award had been procured by fraud; and (c) the award was in any event contrary to the public policy of Singapore. In the challenged award, the tribunal had ordered Reliance Infra to pay Shanghai Electric approximately US$146 million.
The principal question in this case was whether Reliance Infra, by not alleging forgery in the signature of the arbitration agreement during the arbitration proceedings, was deemed to have waived its right to object to the arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction on that ground.More