奥克塔福系统有限公司 (Octaform Systems Inc.) v. 华浚塑料建材有限公司

At a glance

Parties

Octaform Systems Inc. (奥克塔福系统有限公司, Canada) v. 华浚塑料建材有限公司 (Huajun Plastic Building Materials Co., Ltd., China)

Case no.

(2019)浙05协外认1号

Court

Huzhou Intermediate People's Court, Zhejiang Province, China

Underlying award(s)

Final award of 16 April 2019 (with partial final award of 2 April 2019 attached as Appendix A), British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre (BCICAC), seat Vancouver

Treaty

New York Convention, Articles IV and V

Court

Presiding judge 杨林法; judges 杨瑞芳 and 郑扬

Sector

PVC concrete forming and wall/ceiling liner products; supply contract

Outcome

The award was recognised and enforced in full. Every ground the respondent raised under Article V was rejected.

Amount

Award: USD 298,192.22 and CAD 735,434.85, with post-award interest at 5% (CAD 97.05 and USD 36.19 per day). Octaform's request converted this to RMB 5,889,380.5. Court fee of RMB 500 charged to the respondent.

The dispute

Octaform, a Canadian company that designs and sells interlocking PVC concrete-forming and liner systems, signed a supply agreement with the Chinese manufacturer 华浚 (Huajun) in August 2011. Huajun first supplied formwork profiles and later QuickLiner panels. Article 24 of the agreement provided for BCICAC arbitration in Vancouver. In 2016 Octaform started arbitration. It claimed that Huajun had stopped supplying without notice, had breached the confidentiality clause (Article 29) by using the dimensions of Octaform's LQL-18 QuickLiner panel, had kept Octaform's moulds and had delivered defective products. The arbitrator ruled largely for Octaform, and Octaform applied in Huzhou for recognition and enforcement. Huajun opposed on five grounds: the arbitration agreement had not been notarised or authenticated (Article IV); the QuickLiner claims went beyond the agreement (Article V(1)(c)); the procedure departed from the BCICAC rules and procedural orders (Article V(1)(d)); it had no proper notice on interest (Article V(1)(b)); and the confidentiality finding conflicted with Chinese trade-secret and patent law and so with public policy (Article V(2)(b)).

Key holdings

1. Article IV does not require the arbitration agreement to be notarised and authenticated here. Both parties confirmed that the supply agreement was signed in English, and Huajun did not dispute the Chinese and English versions filed. The content of the arbitration agreement was therefore certain. pp. 10–11
2. No excess of jurisdiction under Article V(1)(c). The parties had applied the supply agreement to QuickLiner products in practice, as shown by a quality-assurance confirmation that cited Article 22 and listed QuickLiner goods. Huajun had itself counterclaimed on QuickLiner products. Under the BCICAC rules the arbitrator was entitled to decide, and did decide, that Article 29 applied to them. p. 11
3. The procedure complied with the parties' agreement (Article V(1)(d)). Rule 17(3) requires an estimate of the value of the dispute only "if any". Rule 22(5) allows amendments to a claim during the proceedings, and the 45-day limit in Rule 23 concerns further written statements. The amended statement of claim of 29 September 2017 was therefore timely. The arbitrator did not rely only on the evidence of the absent witness 方·哈兰迪. Rule 34(1) allowed the partial award and the later call for submissions on interest. pp. 11–13
4. No lack of proper notice under Article V(1)(b). After Huajun's lawyer withdrew on 8 April 2019, the arbitrator wrote to Huajun's representative 王如森 directly. Octaform's interest submission of 9 April 2019 was copied to him. Huajun's failure to respond came from its handover with its lawyer, not from any failure by the tribunal. p. 13
5. No breach of public policy under Article V(2)(b). The breach-of-confidence finding applied the common law of British Columbia, which the parties had agreed. Patents are territorial, and Huajun did not show that it held a patent in Canada. The finding affects only the parties' economic interests and does not harm China's fundamental legal principles or public interest. pp. 13–14
6. The award of 16 April 2019 is recognised and enforced. The court fee of RMB 500 is borne by Huajun. pp. 14–15

Procedural history

1. 31 August 2011Supply agreement signed, containing the BCICAC arbitration clause in Article 24. The court gives this date; Octaform's application gives 30 August 2011. The agreement was later extended to 30 June 2015.
2. November 2016Octaform files its notice of arbitration with the BCICAC.
3. 5 July 2017Octaform files its statement of claim. An amended statement follows on 29 September 2017.
4. 2 April 2019Partial final award on the merits; interest is left for later decision.
5. 16 April 2019Final award fixing pre-award and post-award interest.
6. 1 August 2019Huzhou Intermediate People's Court accepts Octaform's application for recognition and enforcement.
7. 24 November 2020Ruling recognising and enforcing the award. This is the date printed on the ruling; the database lists 24 December 2020.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

For the claimant

北京大成（上海）律师事务所

For the respondent

浙江君安世纪律师事务所 · 浙江银湖律师事务所

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• New York Convention
• recognition and enforcement
• China
• Canada
• BCICAC
• Vancouver
• Article IV authentication
• excess of jurisdiction
• Article V(1)(c)
• procedural irregularity
• Article V(1)(d)
• proper notice
• public policy
• trade secrets
• breach of confidence
• utility model patent
• PVC formwork
• QuickLiner

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