On 18 September 2006, China International Economic and Trade
Arbitration Commission rendered an arbitral award in a sales
contract dispute case between Shanghai Jwell Machinery Co., Ltd
(Jwell Ltd) and Retech Aktiengesellschaft (Retech) from
Switzerland. Jwell Ltd subsequently filed an application for
enforcement of the award with a Swiss court. However, the
application was rejected in 2007, 2009 and 2010 on the grounds that
the translations of the award do not comply with section 4(2) of
the New York Convention.
On 30 July 2008, one batch of machinery equipment belonging to
Retech was found on display in Shanghai by Jwell Ltd. The company
applied to the Shanghai No.1 Intermediate People's Court for
enforcement of the award. Retech opposed on the ground that the
application had exceeded the six-month time-bar prescribed under
Article 219 of the then PRC Civil Procedure Law (1991)
which governed the time limit an enforcement action should be
taken. Retech's opposition was dismissed by the court.
On appeal, the Shanghai High People's Court held that while
Shanghai's courts do not have enforcement jurisdiction over the
case on the effective date of the award i.e., 18 September 2006,
since Retech was not domiciled, or had no property, in China at the
time [see Article 217 of the then PRC Civil Procedure Law
time-bar for the application should be calculated as from the date
when the court had jurisdiction over the matter (i.e., the date
when it was discovered that Retech has property in China i.e., 30
July 2008). Subsequently, the Judicial Committee of the Supreme
People's Court also upheld this, and issued it as a guiding
case on 18 December 2014.
This guiding case confirms the general principle that Chinese
courts do not have the power to execute a foreign-related award
unless the person subject to enforcement of the award, or the
property of that person, is in mainland China at the material
Pursuant to Article 239 of the PRC Civil Procedure Law (2012
Amendment), the period for applying for enforcement of an
award has been extended to two years. It shall start from the last
day of the performance period specified in a legal instrument, or
the effective date of a legal instrument if it does not specify a
period of performance. The court, however, takes the view that this
time-bar provision is subject to the normal condition where a court
has seized jurisdiction over the enforcement matter.
Hence, where a person subject to execution of a foreign-related
award either does not domicile, or has no property, in China on, or
after, the date of the award, the Court would have no jurisdiction
over the matter, and the two-year time-bar does not start to run.
According to Article 239, the two-year period would be calculated
from the date when it is discovered that either the person is, or
has property, in China. This interpretation enables a winning party
of a foreign-related award to take enforcement action against a
losing foreign party at a later stage if it subsequently discovers
that the losing foreign party has property in mainland China. This
is on the condition that there is no delay on the part of the
winning party in taking enforcement actions.
1. Article 237
of PRC Civil Procedure Law (2012 Amendment)
Mayer Brown is a global legal services organization
comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the Mayer
Brown Practices). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP, a
limited liability partnership established in the United States;
Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership
incorporated in England and Wales; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong
partnership, and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil &
Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer
Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown
logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their
This article provides information and comments on legal
issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a
comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not
intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific
legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters
discussed herein. Please also read the JSM legal publications
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
We discuss Robinson Helicopter Company Incorporated v McDermott  HCA 22 .
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).