NEWS ALERT
1. U.S. Ninth Circuit Affirms Confirmation of Beijing Arbitration Commission Award and Clarifies Presence-Based Jurisdiction
On 3 August 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a Southern District of California judgment confirming a Beijing Arbitration Commission award in Shenzhen Zehuijin Investment Center, Limited Partnership v. Liu Yingkui (No. 24-6215). The dispute arose from a RMB 160 million loan, with the BAC awarding the lender approximately RMB 150 million after Liu failed to repay it. In the recognition and enforcement proceeding, Liu argued that his domicile was not in California and that he was not properly served. The Ninth Circuit rejected both arguments. As to jurisdiction, Liu’s voluntary physical presence in California supported presencebased general jurisdiction. As to service, the court held that Liu had waived this defense under Rule 12(b)(5) by failing to raise it in his motion to dismiss; it therefore had no need to decide whether service strictly complied with the applicable rules. The court noted, however, that the papers were left with an adult cotenant at Liu’s residence and thereafter sent to him by mail and email, and that Liu admitted receiving actual notice.
2. English High Court Recognizes and Enforces Dalian Court Judgment
On 24 July 2026, the High Court of England and Wales held in Wei & Anor v Junhong [2026] EWHC 1892 (Comm) that a Chinese judgment for US$2,129,116 plus interest was enforceable in England. Wang opposed enforcement on two grounds: that the judgment was not “final and conclusive” because her application for procuratorial supervision could lead to a retrial, and that the proceedings breached natural justice because the Chinese court failed to address an audit report submitted with her retrial application. The Court rejected both defences. A Chinese judgment remains final unless execution is suspended, and Wang’s application was itself dismissed. As to natural justice, the Court stated that a trial is not a dress rehearsal; Wang bore the consequences of choosing not to submit the audit report when it was available before the Chinese court rendered its decision. The decision confirms that a pending extraordinary review process does not, without more, preclude enforcement of a final Chinese money judgment in England.
3. Federal Court of Australia Enforces Beijing Arbitration Commission Award
On 27 July 2026, the Federal Court of Australia enforced a Beijing Arbitration Commission award in Zhejiang Lishui Mengxiang Education Development Co Ltd v Pan [2026] FCA 992. Acting under section 8(3) of the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth), the Court entered judgment against four individual respondents, jointly and severally, for the outstanding CNY 93,018,143.30 or its Australian-dollar equivalent at the time of payment. The application was heard ex parte. The Court was satisfied that the award was a foreign award, the underlying commercial dispute was arbitrable and the statutory evidentiary requirements had been met. It also noted that none of the respondents had challenged the award or applied to set it aside at the seat. Because the orders were made ex parte, the Court stayed them for approximately six weeks and required the applicant to notify each respondent by text message, email and letters to addresses in China, giving them an opportunity to apply to set the orders aside. The decision illustrates the Federal Court’s two-stage approach to ex parte enforcement: prompt entry of judgment combined with a temporary stay and notice safeguards.
4. Hong Kong High Court Recognizes Unregistered Mainland Judgments in Winding-Up Proceedings
On 6 July 2026, Hong Kong’s Court of First Instance confirmed that an unregistered Mainland judgment may be recognised at common law and relied on for winding-up purposes. In China Financial Services Holdings Ltd v Zou Muxin [2026] HKCFI 3837, the creditor served a statutory demand for RMB 7,885,102.46 based on two Beijing Higher People’s Court judgments. The company sought an injunction restraining the creditor from presenting a winding-up petition, arguing that registration under the Mainland Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap. 597) was required and that the judgments were not final because retrial remained available. The Court rejected both arguments. The Court held that non-registration does not preclude commonlaw recognition and that the statutory restriction on debt-recovery proceedings does not extend to winding-up. The availability of retrial did not, on the facts, defeat finality because it does not stay enforcement, and the company’s application for retrial was ultimately dismissed. Although the debt had been paid and the proceedings had become academic, the creditor was treated as the effective winner and awarded costs. The decision confirms that non-registration alone does not prevent a Mainland judgment from supporting winding-up proceedings in Hong Kong.
5. Macao Explores to Establish an International Arbitration Platform for China and Portuguese/Spanish-Speaking Countries
In July 2026, the China-Portuguese (Spanish)-Speaking Countries Economic and Trade Services Centre, which was jointly established by Macau and the Executive Committee of the GuangdongMacao In-Depth Cooperation Zone in Hengqin in April 2025, announced plans to promote the establishment of an international arbitration platform for trade and investment cooperation between China and Portuguese/Spanish-Speaking countries. It will also explore cooperation with existing arbitration institutions in Macau to establish a dedicated arbitration center, responding to growing demand for cross-border dispute resolution services. Although the proposal remains at the research stage, it signals Macau’s policy direction of leveraging its role as a platform between China and Portuguese/Spanish-Speaking countries to develop cross-border arbitration services. For Chinese enterprises engaged in trade and investment with Portuguese/Spanish-Speaking countries, Macau may in the future offer an additional dispute resolution forum combining bilingual capabilities with convenient links to Mainland China. The institutional structure, arbitration rules and coordination with the Hengqin warrant continued attention.
6. Guangzhou Maritime Court Mediates Foreign Vessel Collision Dispute with No Substantial Connection to China
In August 2026, the Guangzhou Maritime Court successfully mediated an international vessel collision dispute arising from a collision between an Antigua and Barbuda-flagged vessel and a Liberia-flagged vessel in the Strait of Hormuz near UAE waters. Neither vessel was owned by a Chinese entity, and the collision had no substantive connection with China. While the Liberiaflagged vessel was undergoing repairs in Shenzhen, the owner of the Antigua and Barbuda-flagged vessel applied to the Guangzhou Maritime Court for its arrest. The parties subsequently agreed to submit the dispute to the jurisdiction of the Guangzhou Maritime Court and apply Chinese law, with their claims totalling approximately RMB 180 million. During the proceedings, the Guangzhou Maritime Court held four pre-trial conferences and appointed maritime technical investigators to reconstruct the collision based on preserved key evidence, enabling the facts to be established efficiently. On 27 July 2026, the parties reached a settlement with the assistance of the Guangzhou Maritime Court. On 31 July, the Guangzhou Maritime Court further facilitated the distribution of the maritime liability limitation fund. The case demonstrates the increasing accessibility of Chinese maritime courts for international shipping disputes and provides a practical reference for international shipping participants considering China as a forum for maritime dispute resolution.
7. Nanning International Commercial Court Uses AI to Facilitate Cross-Border Dispute Resolution
In July 2026, in a dispute arising from an international sale of goods contract concerning durians between a Chinese entity and a Vietnamese entity, the Nanning International Commercial Court of the China-ASEAN Free Trade Area deployed the China-ASEAN Legal Consultation AI Agent to facilitate the determination of Vietnamese law. The AI tool rapidly searched, compared and translated relevant Vietnamese legal provisions and generated legal reference materials, which assisted the Court in mediating the dispute. The parties subsequently entered into a settlement agreement providing for payment by instalments totaling RMB 620,000. The case reflects Chinese courts’ growing use of AI tools in foreign-related disputes to reduce the time and costs associated with ascertaining foreign law and overcoming language barriers. It also demonstrates the potential of AI-assisted legal research to facilitate more efficient resolution of China-ASEAN cross-border disputes.
To view the full article clickhere
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
