贸达商品有限公司 v. 北京和美汉艺进出口有限责任公司

At a glance

Parties

贸达商品有限公司 (Hong Kong seller of coffee) v. 北京和美汉艺进出口有限责任公司 (Beijing import-export company)

Case no.

(2018)京04协外认8号

Court

Beijing No. 4 Intermediate People's Court (北京市第四中级人民法院)

Underlying award(s)

British Coffee Association Award No. BCA040 of 13 October 2016, corrected on 25 November 2016 (London)

Treaty

New York Convention 1958, Article V

Court

Presiding judge Wang Xiang (王翔); judges Cui Zhiyu (崔智瑜) and Li Dongmei (李冬梅)

Sector

Coffee trade (sale of green coffee beans)

Outcome

The award was recognised and enforced as far as it concerns contracts S30030, S30055 and S31018. The ruling is dated 3 December 2019 on its face; the database gives 25 January 2019.

Amount

Enforcement sought: USD 648,599.10 principal plus 6% interest, and arbitration costs of GBP 3,570.37 plus interest. The corrected award was for USD 883,695.17, which also covers other contracts. Court fee: RMB 500, charged to the respondent.

The dispute

The Hong Kong company 贸达商品有限公司 sold coffee to the Beijing company 北京和美汉艺进出口有限责任公司 under sales confirmations dated 16 November 2010 (S30030), 12 April 2011 (S30055) and 9 August 2011 (S31018). The buyer did not pay in full. Each contract said "Arbitration: London" and incorporated the European Coffee Contract (ECC) rules. The seller brought arbitration before the British Coffee Association against the buyer, Beijing Kangtan coffee trading company (北京康坦愢咖啡贸易有限责任公司) and Ji Ming (季明). The tribunal ordered the buyer to pay for the coffee, with interest and costs. The seller then asked the Beijing court to recognise and enforce the part of the award covering the three contracts. The buyer raised three objections: the arbitration clauses named no arbitral institution; the constitution of the tribunal and the consolidation of four contracts breached the agreement and the English Arbitration Act 1996; and it had not received proper notice, because notices were emailed to the personal mailbox of its employee Qi Yi (齐仪), whom it had never authorised to receive them.

Key holdings

1. The New York Convention applies because China and the United Kingdom are both parties and the dispute arises from a contractual commercial relationship. The objections are reviewed under Article V. p. 8
2. The arbitration agreement is valid and the British Coffee Association had jurisdiction. The contracts named London as the place of arbitration and incorporated the ECC rules. Under those rules, disputes go to the coffee trade body established at the place of arbitration, which in London is the British Coffee Association. p. 9
3. The tribunal was properly constituted. The two arbitrators were chosen under the 2008 BCA Rules, which allow the Association to appoint an arbitrator if a party fails to do so. Consolidating the four contracts was permitted by the BCA Rules. p. 10
4. Notice was proper. Service by email complied with the BCA Rules. Qi Yi had signed the contracts for the buyer and is the spouse of co-respondent Ji Ming, so the seller had reason to believe she could act for the buyer. The Chaoyang District Court judgment (2017)京0105民初44550号 shows that the buyer knew of the unpaid debt. p. 10
5. The award does not conflict with Chinese public policy. It is recognised and enforced for contracts S30030, S30055 and S31018. The request for an order of immediate payment falls outside the scope of recognition and enforcement review. The respondent bears the court fee of RMB 500. pp. 10–11

Procedural history

1. 16 November 2010 – 9 August 2011The parties sign sales confirmations S30030, S30055 and S31018 for coffee.
2. 13 October 2016The British Coffee Association issues Award No. BCA040 against the buyer: the price of the coffee with 6% interest compounded quarterly, and arbitration costs.
3. 25 November 2016The tribunal corrects a clerical error and reduces the principal to USD 883,695.17.
4. 3 May 2018The Beijing No. 4 Intermediate People's Court registers the application for recognition and enforcement.
5. 3 December 2019The court recognises and enforces the award for the three contracts. The database gives the date as 25 January 2019.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

For the claimant

广东敬海（南沙）律师事务所 · 北京市君合（广州）律师事务所

For the respondent

北京市纵横律师事务所

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• New York Convention Article V
• recognition and enforcement
• foreign arbitral award
• British Coffee Association
• European Coffee Contract
• ECC rules
• coffee trade
• proper notice
• email service
• validity of arbitration clause
• consolidation
• English Arbitration Act 1996
• public policy
• partial enforcement
• China
• Hong Kong

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