International Commercial Arbitration Center (Beijing) Physical Platform Officially Launched

The physical platform of the International Commercial Arbitration Center (Beijing) was officially launched on May 7. This marks a major achievement in implementing the “Pilot Program for the Establishment of International Commercial Arbitration Centers” issued by the central government in 2022 and signifies a key step in enhancing Beijing’s capacity for international commercial dispute resolution.

The Center integrates five core functions: exchange and cooperation, resource aggregation, arbitration promotion, shared services, and talent think tank development. It aims to build four flagship brands: an “International Reception Hall,” an “International Shared Hearing Center,” a “Full-Chain Commercial Dispute Resolution Mechanism,” and a “Training Base for Foreign-Related Legal Service Talent,” leading the high-quality development of arbitration in China.

The platform adopts a “1+N” comprehensive development model: with the Beijing Central Business District as the core functional area, it also leverages distinctive legal service ecosystems in Fengtai (legal services zone), Dongcheng (culture and entertainment), and Haidian (intellectual property), forming a “core-centered, multi-point supported” layout. Furthermore, by integrating mediation, arbitration, litigation, and broad legal services, and partnering with 21 professional institutions, the platform has established a one-stop, full-chain commercial dispute resolution service system to provide efficient and convenient services for market participants.

National First: Shanghai Court Issues Investigation Order to Support Evidence Collection in International Arbitration"

On May 14, the Shanghai International Commercial Court took a groundbreaking step by issuing an investigation order to support the collection of key evidence based on an interim measure granted by the arbitral tribunal of the Shanghai International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (Shanghai International Arbitration Center). This marks the first time a Chinese court has issued an investigation order to enforce interim measures in international commercial arbitration, demonstrating strong judicial support for international arbitration in China.

The case involves a cross-border data service contract dispute between a Hong Kong company and foreign and Jiangxi-based companies. The core issue centers on verifying the identity of a transaction representative through their WeChat account to determine the contractual relationship. As the parties were unable to independently obtain the WeChat registration information, they applied for interim relief from the arbitral tribunal. Upon review, the tribunal deemed the evidence critical and issued an interim measure, subsequently requesting judicial assistance through Shanghai’s "one-stop" platform.

After examination, the Shanghai International Commercial Court confirmed that: the evidence was highly relevant and necessary; neither the parties nor the tribunal could obtain it independently; and the interim measure was procedurally sound. Based on these findings and in accordance with local regulations, the court issued an investigation order.

This case is of significant importance. Interim measures—such as evidence preservation—are a widely recognized mechanism in international arbitration and play a vital role in ensuring procedural fairness and the enforceability of awards. Shanghai's approach operationalizes the international arbitration principle of court-assisted evidence collection within China’s judicial framework. By conducting a court review informed by the arbitral tribunal’s findings, this initiative bridges domestic judicial practice with international norms. It provides a model for similar cases, improves judicial efficiency, reinforces international confidence in Shanghai’s rule-of-law-based business environment, and supports the city's ambition to become a leading arbitration hub in the Asia-Pacific region.

Multiple SCIA Arbitral Awards Recognized and Enforced in the United States

Recently, several arbitral awards rendered by the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration (SCIA) have been recognized and enforced in the United States under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (hereinafter referred as “the New York Convention”). These cases provide strong legal safeguards for dispute resolution between Chinese and foreign parties and contribute to the orderly development of international trade and commerce.

Landmark Case: U.S. Court Confirms Validity of SCIA’s Cross-Border Electronic Service

In one representative case, the underlying arbitration involved an international service contract dispute accepted by SCIA, with the claimant being a Hong Kong company and the respondent a U.S.-based company. After the award was issued, the respondent failed to fulfill its payment obligations. The claimant then applied to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California for recognition and enforcement of the award under the New York Convention.

The respondent objected, arguing that it had not received proper notice of the arbitration proceedings or been given the opportunity to select an arbitrator, and requested that enforcement be denied. The U.S. court, after reviewing SCIA’s service records and the SCIA Arbitration Rules, found that SCIA had delivered the notice of arbitration and procedural documents through three methods: EMS courier, email, and SMS. Records from SCIA’s case management system showed that the respondent had accessed and read the documents via email and SMS. Although the respondent did not submit a defense or appoint an arbitrator within the prescribed period, it later appeared at the hearing and participated in subsequent proceedings after the tribunal had been constituted.

Based on these findings, the U.S. court held that the respondent had received proper notice during the arbitration process and accordingly recognized and enforced the award under the New York Convention.

This case highlights the U.S. judiciary’s recognition and support of SCIA’s service methods, affirming the validity of cross-border electronic service. It follows a similar precedent set by the High Court of Singapore, which had also upheld the validity of SCIA’s electronic service methods in cross-border disputes. These decisions represent a growing international consensus on the legitimacy of SCIA’s procedural practices and carry significant implications for the global enforceability of its awards.

Shanghai Financial Court:

No Repetitive Arbitration Found—Claims in the Two Cases Were Based on Different Termination Dates and Disputes, Thus Not Constituting Duplicate Applications

Legal Basis:

"Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China"

Article 58

Where the parties concerned can provide evidence disproving the arbitration award in any of the following circumstances, they may request a cancellation of the arbitration award by an intermediate People's Court at the place where the arbitration commission is located:

 ...

(3) the establishment of the arbitration tribunal or arbitration procedures are in contravention of legal proceedings;

 ...

Where the People's Court has formed a collegiate bench and has examined and verified that the award was made under one of the aforesaid situations, it shall order the cancellation of the award.

Where the People's Court decides that it should make a ruling to the effect that there has been a violation of the public interest, it shall order the cancellation of the award.

Case Description：

In 2018, Mr. Ren entered into the "XXXX No. 9 Private Investment Fund Contract" (Contract No.: XXXX-Shanghai Custody 2018 No. 3-004) with Fund Manager Company A and Custodian Company B (later changed to a certain bank).

On September 1, 2021, Mr. Ren issued a lawyer’s letter to Company A and Company B, claiming the fund manager had breached the contract by unilaterally changing the investment target and demanding termination of the fund contract. The termination letter was sent via express mail on September 2 but was not actually received by Company A due to a mailing address error.

On October 20, 2021, Mr. Ren initiated the first arbitration (Case No. 0083) with Company A and Company B as respondents before Arbitration Commission X, requesting confirmation that the fund contract had been terminated on September 2, 2021, and seeking the return of RMB 12.5 million in principal, interest, legal fees, and guarantee fees.

On November 3, 2021, during the 0083 arbitration, Company A received the arbitration notice and supporting documents from Commission X, thereby effectively becoming aware of the termination notice.

In 2023, the arbitral tribunal in Case No. 0083 dismissed all of Mr. Ren’s claims on the grounds that the termination notice had not been effectively delivered and therefore the termination was invalid. However, the award explicitly stated that “the dismissal of this claim does not preclude the claimant from pursuing his rights through other lawful means.”

In 2024, Mr. Ren initiated a second arbitration (Case No. 1270) against Company A alone, requesting confirmation that the fund contract had been terminated on November 3, 2021 (based on Company A’s actual receipt of the termination notice on that date), and again sought the return of the RMB 12.5 million principal plus interest and legal fees.

Arbitration Commission X issued an award in Case No. 1270 supporting Mr. Ren’s claims, confirming the contract was terminated on November 3, 2021, and ordering Company A to return the principal and interest.

On March 24, 2025, Company A filed an application with the court to set aside the award in Case No. 1270, arguing that the arbitration constituted a duplicate proceeding and violated legal procedure.

Court's View:

The central issue was whether the arbitral award in Case No. 1270 violated Article 58 of the Arbitration Law—specifically, whether it constituted a procedural violation due to repetitive arbitration in breach of the “one arbitration final” principle. The court made the following findings:

A. No Duplicate Arbitration Exists

The respondents in the two cases were different: Case No. 0083 involved both Company A and Company B, while Case No. 1270 only involved Company A. Moreover, the legal basis of the claims differed: in Case No. 0083, Mr. Ren claimed the contract was terminated on September 2, 2021, while in Case No. 1270, the termination date claimed was November 3, 2021—based on new facts (i.e., Company A’s actual receipt of the termination notice). The award in Case No. 0083 rejected the claims due to ineffective service but clearly stated that Mr. Ren was not precluded from asserting his rights through lawful means. The later arbitration did not contradict the earlier ruling but was based on a newly arisen and independently asserted fact.

B. Procedural Issues Not Within the Scope of Judicial Review for Setting Aside

Company A’s claim of "repetitive arbitration" concerns the similarity of substantive claims between cases, which falls under the arbitral tribunal’s substantive jurisdiction. Article 58 of the Arbitration Law only allows courts to examine whether the composition of the tribunal or the procedure violated mandatory legal rules, not the correctness of the tribunal’s substantive ruling. In Case No. 1270, the arbitral tribunal addressed the issue of repetition and followed the applicable arbitration rules in doing so.

C. Substantive Determination of Contract Termination Was Lawful

According to Article 565 of the Civil Code of the PRC, a contract is terminated upon receipt of a termination notice by the other party. Company A’s signing of the arbitration materials on November 3, 2021, in Case No. 0083 constituted effective receipt of the termination notice. Therefore, the arbitral tribunal’s conclusion in Case No. 1270—that the contract was terminated on that date—had both factual and legal foundation.

In conclusion, the court found that Company A’s grounds for setting aside the arbitral award in Case No. 1270 were without merit and therefore dismissed the application to set aside the award.

Singapore Court Sets Aside Arbitration Award Over ‘Copy-Paste’ Reasoning by Retired Indian Judges

In a significant ruling, the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) has nullified an arbitral award delivered by a panel of retired Indian judges, citing a breach of natural justice and lack of independent adjudication. The case revolved around a construction dispute concerning the Dedicated Freight Corridor (DFC), a key infrastructure project in India.

The arbitral tribunal was chaired by former Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra, and included Justices R. Banumathi and Krishn Kumar Lahoti. The majority decision was authored by the presiding judge and one co-arbitrator (referred to as Judges A and C), while Justice Banumathi dissented, finding the claim time-barred and lacking proper evidence.

The arbitration, seated in Singapore under the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), involved a contractual dispute between a government-owned Indian entity and a consortium of construction companies. The core issue was whether a 2017 notification revising minimum wages qualified as a “change in law” under the terms of the contract, justifying an increase in contract price.

The SICC found that the tribunal majority had failed to conduct a fresh, independent analysis and had instead recycled large portions of their reasoning from earlier arbitration awards, notably the CTP-13 Award. Judge Roger Giles, presiding over the matter, observed that 157 out of 176 substantive paragraphs in the CTP-11 award were either lifted verbatim or slightly modified from the earlier award, raising serious doubts about the tribunal’s impartiality and application of mind.

“The majority approached the arbitration with a closed mind,” Judge Giles stated, noting that a reasonable observer would suspect prejudgment and bias. The court highlighted that several legal authorities and contractual clauses referenced in the award were neither cited by the parties nor applicable to the actual contract (CTP-11).

One of the more egregious mistakes identified by the court was the tribunal’s reliance on provisions and annexures not present in the CTP-11 contract, but rather from the CTP-13 agreement. Additionally, the tribunal applied Indian law to determine interest and costs, even though Singapore law was meant to govern those aspects under the arbitration’s procedural framework.

Judge Giles emphasized that while arbitrators may serve on multiple related panels, they are duty-bound to evaluate each case independently. “Having the same tribunal in related arbitrations does not give the tribunal license to carry over to one arbitration… the tribunal must be scrupulous in deciding on the evidence and arguments in each.”

The court underscored that the claimant’s right to due process had been compromised, making the breach itself sufficient grounds for setting aside the award. It rejected arguments that the claimant should have raised objections during the arbitration, reaffirming that the integrity of the decision-making process is paramount.

Finally, the court ruled that the CTP-11 arbitral award was set aside, and directed the parties to reach an agreement on cost allocation. Should no consensus be achieved within 21 days, the Court will make a determination on the matter.