On China Litigation And Getting Harmonized To Death. Ugh.
I am going to have to be vague almost to the point of incoherence here, but if you keep reading, you will understand why.
About three years ago, we brought a very large lawsuit in China, using one of our favorite Chinese law firms. We are representing the plaintiff on this case and we are claiming that another foreign company (with a very large China presence) made a mistake that cost our client. The mistake involved shipping and the issue is a really important one for China. The law ought to be clear and it ought to favor our client, but the Chinese courts have been very reluctant to rule.
We have been stuck at the highest level court of the province (a relatively sophisticated province) for about two years now. The court kept trying to get the parties to settle and that has gone absolutely nowhere. Now the court keeps delaying its ruling, saying the decision is important to China and important for China's foreign affairs.
And so we sit. And sit. And sit.
This is the first time anything like this has ever happened to me and I am wondering if we will get a ruling in my lifetime. Our Chinese law firm has a great relationship with this court and is in constant touch with them and they too are very frustrated.
And so we wait. And wait. And wait.
Ugh.
Anyone else have a similar story?
Comments (9)
Read through and enter the discussion by using the form at the endpug_ster - November 23, 2009 1:43 PM
It sounds like the legal mumbo jumbo going on with all imperfect legal systems. Reminds me what happened when I took someone to court to get back my money and I had to take him 5 times. 3 of the times we postponed because a judge wasn't available. And it happened here in the states.
eswn - November 24, 2009 12:07 AM
There was the libel case for the book The Chinese Peasant Study. The trial took place in 2004. No verdict has been announced, because it was too sensitive!
http://www.zonaeuropa.com/20040921_1.htm
chriswaugh_bj - November 24, 2009 2:31 AM
Would I be right, or at least not wrong, in assuming that the point of law is something not clearly set out in the relevant legislation and/or that the NPC is considering legislation on this issue and/or that the court you are dealing with is waiting for either impending legislation or a Supreme People's Court explication of the relevant legislation?
Jamon - November 24, 2009 2:56 AM
I think it is just an issue that they would rather not touch. Making a ruling on (even though is no precedence, but "guidance" ) this might have some conflicts with an economic plan, party line, judge's experience... pick one.
My professor has touched on these instances in my classes at CUHK.
Thijs (Shenzhen) - November 24, 2009 3:05 AM
Is there not something like a deadline for a ruling? Like you are guaranteed to get a result within X months?
dude - November 24, 2009 9:41 AM
It might help Dan's case to determine how the defendant hurt Chinese companies, employees, interests, etc.
Rob - November 24, 2009 11:01 AM
Dan, please forgive me, but might I suggest that, absent an independent judiciary, your Chinese firm's "great relationship with [the] court" could be entering its 10th season and in need of some new blood. I'm going to have to be vague on this point here, but I think you will understand. Cheers.
Chris - November 24, 2009 6:26 PM
It's two foreign companies in China suing each other in China over a Chinese law that is too sensitive for the Chinese court to rule on, am I correct?
Since no Chinese are effected, why do they care? Certainly if a Chinese company or person was effected in some way, the ruling would be easy and the Chinese would win.
I see how this would effect foreign policy because if the policy issue does not effect China, they don't want to get involved
Rob - November 25, 2009 8:22 PM
Chris: Since legal precedence is setting political/legal policy, and since the courts here, in so many ways, have to think and act prospectively, one can understand the need for due care in ruling on what may well be a new-frontier case. Of course, we don't know the facts of the action, but I would hardly think that this denotes indifference on the court's part. Still, it sounds supremely frustrating for the litigants and their counsels. Cheers.