Case 1: Violation of legal procedures by an arbitration institution due to its delivery of documents to a clearly non-existent address of the respondent without verifying its authenticity
A trading company and an import-export company applied for the annulment of an arbitration award. The dispute revolved around the alleged procedural violation wherein the arbitration institution utilized a non-existent address of the trading company provided by the import-export company as the delivery address without verifying its authenticity.
The Beijing No 4 Intermediate People's Court, upon review, ruled that the delivery of arbitration documents is a crucial aspect of the arbitration process, which is related to the smooth proceeding of the arbitration procedure and the authority of the arbitration award. Legitimate and effective delivery of arbitration documents is not only a necessary requirement of due process that ensures the parties' right to be informed and to participate equally in the arbitration process, but also a prerequisite for establishing substantive fairness in arbitration and a strong guarantee for enhancing the credibility of arbitration. In respect and support for arbitration, when examining whether the delivery of arbitration documents violates legal procedures, the people's court should strictly adhere to arbitration rules, scrutinizing both whether the specific method of delivery complies with the arbitration rules and whether the address provided by one party for the other is genuine.
Although the arbitration institution delivered documents to the trading company by mail with notary service used, the address provided by the import-export company did not exist. This resulted in the trading company being unable to receive the relevant arbitration documents and materials, and hence its absence from the arbitration hearing and inability to exercise its rights to make statements at the arbitration court.
In summary, the court held that the arbitration institution's delivery of documents violated legal procedures and notified the arbitration institution to re-arbitrate the case. After the arbitration institution agreed to re-arbitrate, the court terminated the annulment procedure. By notifying the arbitration institution to re-arbitrate, this case not only corrects the procedural issues but also maximizes the preservation of the parties' agreement to arbitrate, which reduces the cost of rights protection for the parties and provides a useful reference for standardizing and improving arbitration delivery procedures.
