It is important to promote the settlement of diversified cross-border commercial disputes, and to promote the international mutual recognition and enforcement of foreign-related commercial arbitral awards. For applications for recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, the courts conduct judicial reviews in accordance with the provisions of the New York Convention to which China has acceded.
A South Korean company and a technology company in Beijing signed a sales contract on December 5, 2013. Article 15 of the contract stipulated that disputes arising from the contract shall be submitted to the Singapore International Arbitration Centre for arbitration. The arbitration shall be governed by the laws of Singapore, and the arbitration procedure shall be conducted in English. Later, the two parties signed four supplementary agreements, but none of them had amended the arbitration clause. Due to disputes between the two parties in the performance of the contract, the South Korean company filed for arbitration with the Singapore International Arbitration Centre on November 21, 2016, under case number ARB288/16/QW. On October 23, 2019, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre made a final award, No. 129 of 2019. Since the technology company in Beijing failed to perform the effective award within the prescribed time limit, the South Korean company appealed to the court for recognition and enforcement of the arbitration award. During the review, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre issued a Memo of Corrections to the case, and the South Korean company applied for recognition and enforcement of the award as corrected.
The technology company in Beijing argued that the composition of the arbitral tribunal was not in conformity with the arbitration rules, that some matters adjudicated did not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement, that there were obvious errors in the adjudication results, and that the adjudication was harmful to the public interest, and so should not be recognized as enforceable. After review, the court held that the composition of the arbitral tribunal involved in this case did not violate the arbitration rules, and the arbitral tribunal's rejection of the arbitration counterclaim of the technology company in Beijing did not exceed the scope of the arbitration agreement. The arbitration was to resolve the disputes arising from the performance of the contract between commercial parties, and the result of the settlement only involved the parties to the contract and did not involve China's public policy. And whether the arbitral tribunal accepted expert opinions involved the exercise of arbitration power had nothing to do with China's public policy. Although the electric power system is an important department related to public safety and services, all matters concerning the purchase of power equipment should not be identified as public policies. The arbitral tribunal heard the case based on evidence and the laws involved, and the award made was applicable. The arbitral tribunal determined the rights and obligations of both parties, but it can't be considered that the content of the award violated the public policy, so the defense of the technology company in Beijing was not established. The court ruled to recognize and enforce the final arbitration award and the Memo of Corrections made by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre.
