信息管理服务全球有限公司 v. 新疆美克化工股份有限公司

At a glance

Parties

IHS Global Limited (信息管理服务全球有限公司, United Kingdom) v. Xinjiang Meike Chemical Co., Ltd. (新疆美克化工股份有限公司, China)

Case no.

(2018)沪01协外认23号

Court

Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court (上海市第一中级人民法院)

Underlying award(s)

SIAC Award No. 071 of 2018, dated 3 July 2018

Treaty

New York Convention (Articles I, IV, V(1)(a)); PRC Civil Procedure Law, Article 283

Court

Presiding judge 黄英; judges 杨苏 and 任明艳

Sector

Consulting services (specialty chemicals acquisition)

Outcome

The court recognised and enforced the SIAC award on 12 March 2019 and rejected all of the respondent's objections.

Amount

Award: USD 380,839.13 and SGD 202,959.46 in total, including interest, arbitration costs of SGD 42,959.46 and legal costs of SGD 160,000. Court application fee of RMB 39,037.42 charged to the respondent.

The dispute

On 20 January 2016, IHS Global Limited, a UK company, signed a consulting contract titled "Specialty Chemicals Company Acquisition Identification (Commercial Proposal)" with a group company whose name is redacted as "XX". A Supplemental Agreement No. 1 of 17 March 2016 replaced that group company with Xinjiang Meike Chemical Co., Ltd. as the contracting party. Meike did not pay the service fees and suspended the contract on its own. IHS started SIAC arbitration on 10 October 2017, and on 3 July 2018 the tribunal ordered Meike to pay fees, interest and costs. IHS then asked the Shanghai court to recognise and enforce the award. Meike raised three objections: IHS's status as a party was doubtful, because the contract bore no signature of its legal representative and no company seal, and the addresses did not match. The arbitration clause (clause 6.7) was invalid because it conflicted with a court clause (clause 6.11). And the award and its translation had not been notarised and legalised by the Chinese consulate in Singapore.

Key holdings

1. Jurisdiction and applicable law. The court has jurisdiction under Article 283 of the PRC Civil Procedure Law because Meike's property is in Shanghai: it holds 12.72% of Meike (Shanghai) Fine Chemical Co., Ltd. The New York Convention applies because the award was made in Singapore and both China and Singapore are Contracting States. p. 4
2. IHS was a party to the contract. Its authorised representative, John Page, signed for it, and IHS ratified the signature and relied on the contract in the arbitration. Meike never challenged IHS's standing during the arbitration. The company name matched even though the addresses differed, and the missing seal did not matter. p. 5
3. Under Article V(1)(a), the validity of the arbitration agreement is governed by Singapore law, which the parties chose. Applying the principle in Insigma Technology Co Ltd v. Alstom Technology Ltd [2009] 3 SLR(R), the court held that clause 6.7 shows a clear intention to arbitrate. The clause is therefore valid. pp. 6–7
4. Clause 6.11 is a limitation-period clause, not a dispute resolution clause. Its reference to a "competent court" does not exclude arbitration, so the two clauses do not conflict. p. 7
5. The formal requirements of Article IV were met. IHS filed a notarised and legalised original of the award with a Chinese translation by the Shanghai Foreign Affairs Translators Association. Certification of the translation under Article IV(2) was not required, because the award was made in English, one of Singapore's official languages. p. 7
6. The award was recognised and enforced. The application fee of RMB 39,037.42 is to be borne by Meike. p. 8

Procedural history

1. 20 January 2016IHS signs the consulting contract, which contains the SIAC arbitration clause (clause 6.7).
2. 17 March 2016Supplemental Agreement No. 1 substitutes Meike as the contracting party.
3. 10 October 2017IHS files a request for arbitration with SIAC.
4. 3 July 2018SIAC Award No. 071 of 2018 is rendered in favour of IHS.
5. 21 November 2018The Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court registers the application for recognition and enforcement.
6. 12 March 2019The court issues a ruling recognising and enforcing the award.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

For the claimant

北京大成（上海）律师事务所

For the respondent

In-house (company employee)

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• New York Convention
• recognition and enforcement
• SIAC
• Singapore
• China
• IHS Global
• Meike Chemical
• validity of arbitration agreement
• Article V(1)(a)
• Article IV
• translation certification
• legalisation
• limitation clause
• conflicting dispute resolution clauses
• Insigma v Alstom
• authority to sign
• consulting services

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