- within Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Transport and Antitrust/Competition Law topic(s)
1. China’s Revised Arbitration Law Came into Force on 1 March 2026
China’s revised Arbitration Law came into force on 1 March 2026. Key changes include, but are not limited to: (1) the formal recognition of the legal concept of the “seat of arbitration” and clarification of its legal significance; (2) the introduction of ad hoc arbitration on a limited basis (currently confined to foreign-related maritime disputes and certain foreign-related commercial disputes between enterprises registered in designated areas); and (3) the harmonization of the grounds for setting aside and refusing enforcement of foreign-related arbitral awards with the standards under the New York Convention. Overall, the revisions reflect China’s continued efforts to modernize its arbitration framework and enhance its attractiveness as a venue for international dispute resolution.
2. The Supreme People’s Court of China Issued its Work Report in 2025
On 9 March 2026, the Supreme People’s Court of China delivered its Work Report at the Fourth Session of the National People’s Congress, highlighting a continued rise in foreign-related cases. Key figures include: (1) 159,000 foreign-related cases concluded between 2021–2025, a 66% increase from 2016–2020; (2) 23 cases in 2025 where Chinese courts accepted jurisdiction despite no actual connection to China; (3) 155 foreign-related disputes mediated via the one-stop international commercial dispute resolution platform in 2025; (4) the recognition and enforcement of 108 foreign arbitral awards and 972 foreign judgments in 2025; (5) 6,061 international judicial assistance cases handled in 2025; and (6) an average 12-day reduction in cross-border service time in 2025. These data underscore China’s growing caseload and increasing efficiency in cross- border dispute resolution.
3. Hong Kong and Mainland China signed the Arrangement on Mutual Service of Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Proceedings between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
On 20 April 2026, Hong Kong and Mainland China signed the Arrangement on Mutual Service of Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Proceedings between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (the “New Arrangement”), marking the first update in the past 27 years to the existing Arrangement for Mutual Service of Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Proceedings between the Mainland and Hong Kong Courts (the “Existing Arrangement”). In addition to the traditional mutual entrustment mechanism between courts, the New Arrangement introduces several new methods, including: (1) electronic service; (2) service by law firms on intended recipients; and (3) service by public announcement. The New Arrangement is expected to enhance the efficiency and flexibility of cross-border service between the two jurisdictions. The New Arrangement will come into effect only after the completion of relevant legislative procedures in Hong Kong and the issuance of corresponding judicial interpretations in the Mainland.
4. Shanghai High People’s Court released the bilingual (Chinese–English) Typical Commercial and Maritime Cases of Shanghai Courts Involving Foreign, Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan Elements (2023–2025)
In March 2026, the Shanghai High People’s Court released the bilingual (Chinese–English) Typical Commercial and Maritime Cases of Shanghai Courts Involving Foreign, Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan Elements (2023–2025). The publication includes 15 representative cases covering key cross-border scenarios such as international trade, shipping and logistics, air transport, and corporate operations. The cases are organized into five categories: (1) cases regarding accurately applying international conventions and practices; (2) cases regarding accurately ascertaining and applying foreign laws; (3) cases regarding lawfully exercising foreign- related commercial and maritime jurisdiction; (4) cases regarding actively carrying out bilateral judicial assistance; and (5) cases regarding resolving foreign-related disputes through Eastern Experience. The release provides practical guidance on Chinese courts’ approach to complex cross-border disputes.
5. English High Court Recognizes Five Nanjing Commercial Judgments as Enforceable Judgment Debts
The High Court of England and Wales has recently recognized five civil and commercial judgments issued by two Chinese district courts. The judgments, with an aggregate value exceeding RMB 245 million, were held enforceable in England under common law as judgment debts.
The disputes arose from lending and investment cooperation arrangements involving a company operated by two individuals. After the company encountered financial difficulties, five plaintiffs brought lawsuits against the individual defendants and the company, seeking repayment of principal, interest and litigation costs. The Nanjing courts accepted the cases. As the individual defendants could not be located, the cases proceeded through service by public notice and default hearings.
After the judgments became effective in China, the plaintiffs found that the individual defendants had relocated to the United Kingdom and applied to the English High Court for recognition and enforcement. The English court confirmed the Chinese courts’ jurisdiction, recognized the procedural propriety of the public notice service in the PRC proceedings, and held the judgments delivered by the two Chinese district courts enforceable.
6. U.S. Court Enforces CIETAC Awards and Confirms Attachment over High-Value Artworks
In late March 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled in favor of CIETAC award creditors. The court confirmed the CIETAC awards against an individual respondent and upheld attachment of two high-value artworks at Christie’s in New York, including Andy Warhol’s Little Electric Chair and an untitled self-portrait by Martin Kippenberger.
The dispute arose from the 2013 acquisition of South Beauty’s restaurant business. In 2019, China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (“CIETAC”) ordered the respondent to pay approximately USD142.4 million plus costs in two awards, which were later upheld by the Second International Commercial Court of the Supreme People’s Court of China.
In the U.S. confirmation proceeding, the court rejected the respondent’s objections under the New York Convention, including procedural challenges and public policy arguments. It endorsed the Chinese court’s prior procedural review and restated the narrow scope of the public policy exception.
In the parallel attachment proceeding, the court found that the respondent retained the ownership of the artworks and the purported transfer to an offshore company constituted a fraudulent conveyance. The attachment was therefore confirmed.
The rulings illustrate how Chinese awards recognition, asset preservation and enforcement operate in U.S. courts. They also highlight the value of early asset tracing, timely interim measures and beneficial ownership proof in cross-border enforcement.
7. Taiwan Court Recognizes SHIAC Award despite Objections to Technical Appraisal and a Single Hearing
On 11 March 2026, the Qiaotou District Court in Taiwan recognized an arbitral award rendered by the Shanghai International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (“SHIAC”). The award arose from a software development dispute between a Jiangsu company and a Taiwanese company.
The Taiwanese company opposed recognition by challenging the tribunal’s failure to order an independent technical appraisal and the holding of only one hearing, claiming it was denied a reasonable opportunity to present its case. The court rejected all objections. It clarified that cross- strait award recognition adopts a limited review mechanism, excluding any rehearing of the case merits. This ruling confirms the narrow scope of review in cross-strait arbitral award recognition and refuses to second-guess a tribunal’s procedural and evidentiary decisions.
To view the full article click here
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]
