11

Hemofarm DD et al. v.

Yongning Pharmaceutical (2009)²⁴

By denying the legality and appropriateness of the jurisdiction of China courts, the Arbitral Tribunal disregarded the PRC’s judicial sovereignty, and the re-judging of issues already decided by the Ji'nan IPC disregarded the jurisdictional sovereignty of the Chinese courts and the res judicata effect of Chinese court decisions. It was also inappropriate and unfair to order Yongning Pharmaceutical to pay damages caused by the preservation of property issued by the Ji’nan IPC. All this constituted a violation of PRC public policy.

Yes.

12

Noble Resources v. Zhonghai Cereals and Oils (2009)²⁵

The SPC could not find evidence indicating that the Goods would cause any harm to public health.

No.

13

LM Holdings et al. v. Jiashijie Group et al. (2009)²⁶

The SPC refused to enforce the award because the arbitration proceedings were not in accordance with the ICC Rules of Arbitration (1998) and the arbitration clause although the public policy issue was proposed.

Yes.

14

Tianrui Investment v. Yiju Hotel (2010)²⁷

A violation of mandatory rules did not necessarily constitutes a violation of public policy,

No.

15

JapaneseShin-Etsu Chemical Co, Ltd v Jiangsu Zhongtian Polytron Technologies Inc (2010)²⁸

Supra No.9 or 10.

Yes.

16

Louis Dreyfus Commodities Asia v Guangdong Fuhong Edible Co, Ltd (2010)²⁹

The arbitrator’s misunderstanding that there are obvious distinctions between formulated provisions and practical application did not suffice to a breach of public policy.

No.

17

PROFILIA of West Germany (Far East) v Hubei Yingtai (2011)

The IPC claimed that the enforcement would result in loss of state-owned property, thereby constituting a breach of public policy but this claim was then overruled by SPC.

No.

18

JA Apparel v. Judger Group et al. (2011)³⁰

A violation of the mandatory provisions of a state’s law does not necessarily constitute a violation of that state’s public policy.

No.

19

Western Bulk Pte Ltd v Beijing Sinosteel Tiantie Iron & Steel Trade Co, Ltd (2012)³¹

The SPC asserted that public policy should be interpreted and applied strictly and the court refused the enforcement because of lack of appropriate appointment of an arbitrator.

Yes.