瑞欧太阳能公司 (Rioglass Solar S.A.) v. 华夏聚光（内蒙古）光伏电力有限公司

At a glance

Parties

Rioglass Solar S.A. (瑞欧太阳能公司, Spain) v. 华夏聚光（内蒙古）光伏电力有限公司 (Huaxia Juguang (Inner Mongolia) Photovoltaic Power Co., Ltd., China)

Case no.

(2020)内01民特100号

Court

Hohhot Intermediate People's Court, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, China

Underlying award(s)

Final award of 27 July 2018 by sole arbitrator Yu-Jin Tay under the SIAC Rules, seated in Singapore (SIAC arbitration No. 2017/347; the ruling cites the award as No. 2018/083 and also as No. 2018/038)

Treaty

New York Convention (Articles III and V)

Court

Collegiate panel: 何玉山 (presiding judge), 王海莹, 王颖

Sector

Solar power equipment supply

Outcome

The court recognised the legal effect of the Singapore award (1 March 2021).

Amount

Award: USD 2,164,685.25 principal with simple interest at 5.33% a year from 30 April 2017; legal costs of USD 138,255.06; arbitration costs of SGD 78,625.57; interest at 5.33% on the costs from the date of the award. Court application fee: CNY 400, borne by the respondent. The court refunded CNY 86,242.34 of the CNY 86,642.34 the applicant had prepaid.

The dispute

Rioglass Solar S.A., a Spanish company, signed purchase contracts on 8 August 2014 and 22 December 2014 to supply goods to Huaxia Juguang, a photovoltaic power company in Hohhot. In June 2016 the parties signed a supplementary contract that split the remaining price into three instalments. The third instalment was USD 2,164,685.25, and Huaxia did not pay it. All three contracts referred disputes to SIAC arbitration. On 27 July 2018 a sole arbitrator granted Rioglass's application for early dismissal and ordered Huaxia to pay the instalment, interest and costs. Rioglass then asked the Hohhot court to recognise and enforce the award under the New York Convention. Huaxia accepted the debt, the arbitration agreement and the evidence. It contested only the exchange rate and argued that the rate on the day enforcement starts should apply.

Key holdings

1. The award was made in Singapore. China and Singapore are both parties to the New York Convention, and the dispute arises from a contractual commercial relationship under Chinese law. Recognition is therefore governed by the Convention. p. 4
2. The award was made under a valid arbitration clause, and the parties did not object to the procedure, the scope of the arbitration or the applicable law. The application was filed within the time limit of Article 239 of the Civil Procedure Law. pp. 4–5
3. None of the grounds for refusal in Article V of the Convention applies, and recognition does not conflict with China's reservations to the Convention. The tribunal properly decided on the validity of the clause under the law of the place of the award and properly identified the chosen institution. p. 5
4. Under Article 283 of the Civil Procedure Law, the court recognised the legal effect of the SIAC award. The operative part deals only with recognition. It does not rule separately on enforcement or on the exchange-rate objection. p. 5
5. The respondent bears the CNY 400 application fee. The court refunds CNY 86,242.34 of the applicant's prepayment. p. 5

Procedural history

1. 8 August 2014First purchase contract signed. Later versions were signed on 19 March 2015 and 20 May 2015.
2. 22 December 2014Second purchase contract signed.
3. June 2016Amended contract (on or around 6 June 2016) sets out payment in three instalments and refers disputes to SIAC under the SIAC Rules.
4. 27 July 2018Sole arbitrator Yu-Jin Tay issues the final award in SIAC arbitration No. 2017/347 in Rioglass's favour.
5. 20 July 2020Hohhot Intermediate People's Court registers Rioglass's application for recognition and enforcement.
6. 1 March 2021The court recognises the legal effect of the award.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

For the claimant

上海原本律师事务所

For the respondent

In-house legal department

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• New York Convention
• recognition of foreign arbitral award
• Article V
• SIAC
• Singapore
• SIAC Rules
• early dismissal
• Civil Procedure Law Article 283
• Article 239 time limit
• China
• Hohhot
• Inner Mongolia
• solar
• photovoltaic
• sale of goods
• exchange rate
• Rioglass

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