PRC Court Refuses Enforcement Of SIAC Award Made Under Expedited Procedure

PRC Court refuses to enforce an SIAC award made under Expedited Procedure

Herbert Smith Freehills review a decision of the Shanghai No.1 Intermediate Court (not released to the public but information of which was derived from third parties), where the Court refused to enforce a SIAC award under Article V(1)(d) of the New York Convention, which provides that the award may be refused if “[T]he composition of the arbitral authority or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties“.

The authors observe that the Shanghai Court found that the expedited procedure under the 2013 SIAC Rules did not exclude other means of composing a tribunal, nor empower the Chairman of SIAC to compel parties to accept a sole arbitrator despite their agreement to a three-member tribunal, concluding that the appointment of the sole arbitrator violated the parties’ arbitration agreement. Accordingly, the court refused to enforce the award under Article V(1)(d) of the New York Convention and in support of its decision, the Shanghai Court emphasised that party autonomy is the foundation of arbitration proceedings.


About Phillip Rompotis

Phillip practices as a barrister and arbitrator in Hong Kong. He has over 25 years’ litigation and arbitration experience in commercial disputes relating to construction & engineering, financial services, joint venture & shareholders agreements, technology, trusts, property and landlord & tenant. He is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, the Hong Kong Institute of Arbitrators, the Singapore Institute of Arbitrators, the Malaysian Institute of Arbitrators, and a member of various lists/panels of arbitrators.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *