Page 22 - 2017 Policy Watch
P. 22
icy Watch: The Circuit Courts of the Supreme People’s Court
case. It was lawful for the Plaintiff to initiate a lawsuit at the the courts at two places should have the two cases jointly
location where the contract was performed and therefore tried through negotiation or reporting to the higher
rejected Zhejiang Xinshi Company’s objection as to court to designate the jurisdiction, etc. so as to avoid
jurisdiction. The High People’s Court of Liaoning Province controversial judgments and mitigate litigation exhaustion
of the second instance held that Zhejiang Xinshi Company of the Parties. However, considering that the case accepted
claim for the unpaid construction funds and Shenyang by The Changxing Court had been tried by the courts of
Municipal Company accusation of project quality problems, the first and second instances who had issued effective
may not be tried by two courts separately. The Shenyang judgments, the conditions for joint trial of the two cases no
Municipal Company may claim its rights to the case being longer existed, therefore, the ruling of the second instance
tried by Changxing Court. Therefore, the Court revoked court was rectified pursuant to law.
the ruling of the first instance and rejected the suit by The
Shenyang Municipal Company. The Shenyang Municipal (2) Shanghai Oubao Biotechnology Co., Ltd. v. Liaoning
Company was dissatisfied and applied to the Supreme Trevi Industrial Development Co., Ltd. and Xie Tao
People’s Court for retrial.
Case Brief:
The Second Circuit Court of the Supreme People’s
Court retried the case and held that The Shenyang Shanghai Oubao Biology Technology Co., Ltd.
Municipal Company’s lawsuit was not a repetitive suit and (hereinafter referred to as “Oubao Company”) initiated a
The Shenyang Intermediate Court had jurisdiction; this lawsuit with the High People’s Court of Liaoning Province
case did not meet the conditions for joint trial with the on June 13th 2010, requesting the Court to order Liaoning
case that had been accepted by The Changxing Court and Trevi Industrial Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred
should be tried by the court of first instance. Therefore, to as “Trevi Company”) to return loan in the amount of
the Court revoked the rulings for this case of the first and RMB86,500,000 and the interest therefrom. The High
second instances and ordered the Shenyang Intermediate People’s Court of Liaoning Province tried and issued a Civil
Court to try this case. Judgment (2010) Liao Min Er Chu Zi No. 15 on March 21st
2011, ordering Trevi Company to pay to Oubao Company
Comment: RMB86,500,000 and the interest based on the interest rate
of the bank at the corresponding period. Later, because Xie
Although this case was a dispute over jurisdiction, Tao, a creditor of Trevi in another case made a petition, the
it involved the application of laws in three aspects, the High People’s Court of Liaoning Province made Civil Ruling
determination of the jurisdiction, repetitive litigation (2012) Liao Li Er Min Jian Zi No. 8 deciding to retry this case.
and joint trial. The domiciles of the Parties being located Upon retrial, the High People’s Court of Liaoning Province
in Zhejiang’s Hangzhou, and Liaoning’s Shenyang, rejected Oubao Company’s claim. Oubao Company was
respectively, this case was one across administrative dissatisfied and appealed to the Supreme People’s Court.
regions. To scramble for the jurisdiction of the case, the
Parties initiated three lawsuits based on the facts of one Judgment Result:
case. The dispute failed to be solved efficiently for a long
time, which not only caused litigation exhaustion to the The Second Circuit Court of the Supreme People’s
parties, but also severely wasted judicial resources. The Court, after trial, held that the people’s courts protect
Court upon retrial of this case held that the Shenyang lawful loan relationships and at the same time crack
Intermediate Court had jurisdiction over this case; the down on the acts of attempting to impair other persons’
case accepted by Changxing Court and this case were two legitimate rights and interests through false lawsuits by
lawsuits initiated by the Parties on the grounds of the facts malicious collusion. In this case, Oubao Company and
of the same case and the same legal relationship, therefore, Trevi Company were actually controlled by the couple
22
case. It was lawful for the Plaintiff to initiate a lawsuit at the the courts at two places should have the two cases jointly
location where the contract was performed and therefore tried through negotiation or reporting to the higher
rejected Zhejiang Xinshi Company’s objection as to court to designate the jurisdiction, etc. so as to avoid
jurisdiction. The High People’s Court of Liaoning Province controversial judgments and mitigate litigation exhaustion
of the second instance held that Zhejiang Xinshi Company of the Parties. However, considering that the case accepted
claim for the unpaid construction funds and Shenyang by The Changxing Court had been tried by the courts of
Municipal Company accusation of project quality problems, the first and second instances who had issued effective
may not be tried by two courts separately. The Shenyang judgments, the conditions for joint trial of the two cases no
Municipal Company may claim its rights to the case being longer existed, therefore, the ruling of the second instance
tried by Changxing Court. Therefore, the Court revoked court was rectified pursuant to law.
the ruling of the first instance and rejected the suit by The
Shenyang Municipal Company. The Shenyang Municipal (2) Shanghai Oubao Biotechnology Co., Ltd. v. Liaoning
Company was dissatisfied and applied to the Supreme Trevi Industrial Development Co., Ltd. and Xie Tao
People’s Court for retrial.
Case Brief:
The Second Circuit Court of the Supreme People’s
Court retried the case and held that The Shenyang Shanghai Oubao Biology Technology Co., Ltd.
Municipal Company’s lawsuit was not a repetitive suit and (hereinafter referred to as “Oubao Company”) initiated a
The Shenyang Intermediate Court had jurisdiction; this lawsuit with the High People’s Court of Liaoning Province
case did not meet the conditions for joint trial with the on June 13th 2010, requesting the Court to order Liaoning
case that had been accepted by The Changxing Court and Trevi Industrial Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred
should be tried by the court of first instance. Therefore, to as “Trevi Company”) to return loan in the amount of
the Court revoked the rulings for this case of the first and RMB86,500,000 and the interest therefrom. The High
second instances and ordered the Shenyang Intermediate People’s Court of Liaoning Province tried and issued a Civil
Court to try this case. Judgment (2010) Liao Min Er Chu Zi No. 15 on March 21st
2011, ordering Trevi Company to pay to Oubao Company
Comment: RMB86,500,000 and the interest based on the interest rate
of the bank at the corresponding period. Later, because Xie
Although this case was a dispute over jurisdiction, Tao, a creditor of Trevi in another case made a petition, the
it involved the application of laws in three aspects, the High People’s Court of Liaoning Province made Civil Ruling
determination of the jurisdiction, repetitive litigation (2012) Liao Li Er Min Jian Zi No. 8 deciding to retry this case.
and joint trial. The domiciles of the Parties being located Upon retrial, the High People’s Court of Liaoning Province
in Zhejiang’s Hangzhou, and Liaoning’s Shenyang, rejected Oubao Company’s claim. Oubao Company was
respectively, this case was one across administrative dissatisfied and appealed to the Supreme People’s Court.
regions. To scramble for the jurisdiction of the case, the
Parties initiated three lawsuits based on the facts of one Judgment Result:
case. The dispute failed to be solved efficiently for a long
time, which not only caused litigation exhaustion to the The Second Circuit Court of the Supreme People’s
parties, but also severely wasted judicial resources. The Court, after trial, held that the people’s courts protect
Court upon retrial of this case held that the Shenyang lawful loan relationships and at the same time crack
Intermediate Court had jurisdiction over this case; the down on the acts of attempting to impair other persons’
case accepted by Changxing Court and this case were two legitimate rights and interests through false lawsuits by
lawsuits initiated by the Parties on the grounds of the facts malicious collusion. In this case, Oubao Company and
of the same case and the same legal relationship, therefore, Trevi Company were actually controlled by the couple
22
