安富尔自由贸易区公司 (Emphor FZCO) v. 广东粤新海洋工程装备股份有限公司

At a glance

Parties

Emphor FZCO (安富尔自由贸易区公司, Dubai, UAE) v. 广东粤新海洋工程装备股份有限公司 (Guangdong Yuexin Ocean Engineering Equipment Co., Ltd., China)

Case no.

Guangzhou Maritime Court, (2020)粤72协外认1号

Court

Guangzhou Maritime Court (广州海事法院), People's Republic of China; collegial panel presided by 徐元平

Underlying award(s)

Final award of 20 July 2018 by sole arbitrator Jaya Prakash, Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration (SCMA), seated in Singapore

Forum and rules

Recognition and enforcement under the New York Convention (Articles IV and V) and Article 283 of the PRC Civil Procedure Law

Treaty

New York Convention 1958

Sector

Shipbuilding (anchor-handling tug supply vessel)

Outcome

The Court recognised and enforced the SCMA award in full and rejected all of the award debtor's objections (17 June 2020).

Amount

Award: refund of USD 2,780,000 deposit, USD 360,000 liquidated damages, USD 7,262 inspection costs, interest at 6% a year, and SGD 115,400 legal and other costs. The applicant said USD 519,002.26 was still unpaid, interest included to 31 October 2019. Court application fee of RMB 500 to be paid by the respondent; the claims for USD 18,000 translation costs and RMB 20,443.90 notarisation costs were refused.

The dispute

On 14 September 2014 Emphor FZCO, a Dubai free-zone company, ordered a 60.6-metre anchor-handling tug supply vessel from the Guangdong shipyard under shipbuilding contract No. 1409YX3275ASA. Clause 13 of the contract provided for SCMA arbitration in Singapore under English law. The vessel was due on 3 March 2016 but was not delivered, and Emphor terminated the contract on 10 October 2016. The shipyard started arbitration. On 20 July 2018 the sole arbitrator dismissed the shipyard's claims and allowed Emphor's counterclaims. The shipyard's guarantor later repaid the USD 2,780,000 deposit with interest, and Emphor asked the Guangzhou Maritime Court to recognise and enforce the award for the rest. The shipyard raised four objections: the Chinese translations had not been certified as required; it had been denied the chance to answer Emphor's costs submissions (Article V(1)(b)); the interest on the inspection costs went beyond what was claimed (Article V(1)(c)); and Emphor's own enforcement costs had no basis.

Key holdings

1. The New York Convention applies. China and Singapore are both parties to it. A shipbuilding contract dispute is a contractual commercial relationship under Chinese law, so it falls within China's commercial reservation. p. 6
2. The application was filed in time. The two-year limit in Article 239 of the Civil Procedure Law runs from the date the award took effect (by 24 July 2018), and the application was filed on 2 January 2020. p. 6
3. Article IV was satisfied. The award and the contract had been duly notarised and authenticated, and a qualified translation company had translated them into Chinese. The certification requirement in Article 21(2) of the Supreme People's Court enforcement provisions applies to the enforcement stage. The respondent also did not dispute the accuracy of the translation. pp. 6–7
4. No denial of the right to present one's case under Article V(1)(b). On 16 April 2018, the day it received Emphor's costs submissions, the arbitrator invited the shipyard to file closing submissions. The shipyard could have answered the costs submissions then but filed nothing. p. 7
5. The award did not exceed the submission to arbitration under Article V(1)(c). Emphor had claimed the inspection costs. Article 37.2 of the SCMA Rules (3rd edition) allows the tribunal to award interest on any sum, and paragraph 8.1 of the award records the tribunal's broad discretion on interest. Interest on the inspection costs was therefore within the scope of the arbitration. p. 7
6. No ground under Article V(1) or V(2) applies, so the award is recognised and enforced. The respondent pays the RMB 500 application fee. Emphor's claims for translation and notarisation costs were refused because there was no legal basis to decide them in this proceeding and no evidence was produced. pp. 7–8

Procedural history

1. 14 September 2014Shipbuilding contract No. 1409YX3275ASA signed. It took effect on 3 December 2014.
2. 10 October 2016Emphor terminated the contract for late delivery and demanded the return of USD 2,780,000 with 6% interest.
3. 13 December 2016The shipyard served a notice of arbitration under the SCMA Rules.
4. 8 March 2017The SCMA President appointed Jaya Prakash as sole arbitrator.
5. 19 March 2018The arbitrator ordered that the case be decided on documents only and set 16 April 2018 for costs submissions.
6. 20 July 2018Final award: the shipyard's claims were dismissed and Emphor's counterclaims allowed.
7. 2 January 2020Emphor's application for recognition and enforcement was docketed by the Guangzhou Maritime Court.
8. 17 June 2020Ruling: the award was recognised and enforced.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

For the claimant

北京市竞天公诚（广州）律师事务所

For the respondent

北京市中伦（上海）律师事务所

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• New York Convention
• recognition and enforcement
• Article V(1)(b)
• Article V(1)(c)
• Article IV
• Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration
• SCMA Rules
• shipbuilding contract
• anchor-handling tug supply vessel
• late delivery
• right to be heard
• excess of mandate
• interest
• translation certification
• limitation period
• commercial reservation
• Guangzhou Maritime Court
• Emphor

Summary generated with AI from the published documents — refer to the award for the authoritative text.