Urumchi Intermediate People’s Court Releases a Typical Case concerning Actions for Setting side Arbitral Award on the Ground of Violation
Case Summary:
The Claimant applied for setting aside the arbitral award on the grounds that the arbitration commission replaced the arbitrator without prior written notice due to the absence of the sole arbitrator at oral hearing. The Court observed that the Claimant knew temporary replacement of the sole arbitrator without written notice at the time of the oral hearing but no explicit objection raised to such situation. Thus, contrary to Claimant's claim, action for setting aside arbitral award on the ground of violation of procedures will not be allowed. Accordingly, the Court dismiss the Claimant's claim.
Case Analysis:
According to Article 20 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court concerning Some Issues on Application of the Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China, the “be not in conformity with the statutory procedure” stipulated in Article 58 of the Arbitration Law refers to the violation of arbitration procedures prescribed by the Arbitration Law and the arbitration rules chosen by the parties, which may affect the correct resolution of the case. In this case, during the oral hearing, the arbitrator asked both parties whether they were clear about their rights and obligations, had any objections to the attendees, and wanted to request the arbitrator to withdraw or not. Both parties confirmed their understanding of their rights and obligations and did not raise any objections or requests the arbitrator to withdraw. Both parties also signed the hearing record afterwards, indicating their acknowledgment of the record’s contents.
The Claimant was aware of the temporary replacement of the sole arbitrator without written notice at the time of the oral hearing but no explicit objection raised to such situation. After the arbitral award was made, the Claimant applied for setting aside on the grounds of procedural violation. The court found that the Claimant ’s claim did not meet the circumstances stipulated in Article 58 of the Arbitration Law, and therefore dismissed the claim.
(Source: https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/My_Vb5rlbFWtMVK1R3v1Yw)