Case Analysis Of Singapore Laibao Company

International commercial arbitration has been becoming more and more frequent in international communication and business trade.The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitration Awards and the other mechanism related to international arbitration are prevailing discussions in the international law theories.In 2016,Shanghai First Intermediate People's Court refused to enforce the award made by SIAC over the issue between Laibao Resources International Private Limited and Shanghai Xintai International trade Limited,which became the first case that Singapore International Arbitration Center's rapid arbitration rules have been judicially examined by Chinese courts since 2010.As the result,ten million US dollars might just become a bubble.The case was about the application of Singapore Laibao Company and Shanghai Xintai Company to the Singapore International Arbitration Center for arbitration in a dispute over a contract for the sale of iron ore signed by both parties in 2015.Singapore Laibao Company subsequently achieved a favorable ruling on the dispute in the situation of sole arbitration tribunal and then applied for recognition and enforcement by Shanghai First Intermediate Court.The Shanghai First Intermediate people's Court found that the sole arbitration tribunal violated the parties' prior agreement to the three-person arbitration tribunal and constituted the non-recognition and enforcement provisions under Article 5,paragraph 1 of the New York Convention,for which rejected the application of Laibao Company.This case analysis is mainly constructed by three parts.Firstly,the basic information of this case and the clauses involved in the case are introduced and sorted out.On this basis,the two key issues of the case will be summarized,including whether there is an effective arbitration agreement in the contract between the two parties,and whether the application of expedited procedure and sole arbitration tribunal by the Singapore International Arbitration Center violated the agreement of the parties.The second part,from the view of central issues in Laibao case,i will discusses the questions of whether the general quotation of contract will leads to the effective formation of arbitration clauses and which is the priority when the institution rules and arbitration clauses conflicts.For the first question,i will introduces the practice of Singapore domestic law over the issue of quotation of contract,which is similar to Chinese law and then compares the judicial practice of the British courts which divided contract into various classifications.On the issue of conflict between institution rules and arbitration clauses,The writing of juridical reason showed very value of party autonomy in international arbitration.Furthermore,different viewpoints are presented from the two standpoints from institution rules and party autonomy.It also introduces the theory of international arbitration' s expansion and the comparative analysis of another similar case Singapore AQZ v.ARA case and puts forward some suggestions on the absence and how to perfect arbitration agreement systems in China's current arbitration law in the end.On the basis of the analysis of the advantages and disadvantages between the priority of institution rules and the priority of arbitration clauses,the author make his own thoughts and suggestions on the vigorous reform of arbitration rules in China at present,and suggesting that the Singapore Arbitration Center's arbitrary practice on institution rules is unnecessary for Chinese arbitration institution to draw a lesson from.The perfections of institution rules should not only keep pace with the times and respond to the trend of internationalization,but also take into account its own domestic arbitration system and reality needs.It is wise to design arbitration rules in accordance with its actual situations and needs.