Editor’s Note: The Fourth Seminar of the International Commercial Expert Committee of the Supreme People’s Court and Reappointment (New appointment) Ceremony of Expert Members was held successfully on September 25, 2024. Over 40 experts from more than 20 countries and regions focused on the theme of the “Collaborative Dialogue, Diverse Integration, Peaceful Development” during the seminar. Extensive and in-depth discussions were held within the framework of four specific issues. The texts of speeches delivered by the members of expert committee and distinguished guests during the discussion session on Topic One International Experience and Chinese Practice of International Commercial Courts: Procedural Rules, Case Management, and Building Judicial Credibility Building would be posted on the CICC’s website.

Some Reflections on International Commercial Case Proceedings

ZHANG  Yongjian

Member of the Advisory Committee of the SPC

International Judge of the Singapore International Commercial Court, International Judge of the Qatar International Court and Dispute Resolution Centre

International Commercial Courts serve as vital platforms for judges from diverse countries and legal systems to engage in meaningful exchanges that extend far beyond what is typically achievable in interview-based discussions. I have served as an international judge at the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) and the Qatar International Court and Dispute Resolution Centre (QICDRC) for over a year and a half. Throughout this period, I have engaged in numerous discussions when hearing and deliberating cases with colleagues from various countries and regions, which have greatly enriched my knowledge and understanding. Today, I would like to share some personal insights from my experiences in the procedural matters.

Litigation procedures require some rigid provisions, with clear and specific rules for the consequences faced by parties who ignore or even violate the procedures, and importance should be attached to the application of these rules when we handle cases. A recent case, in which I am part of the panel, concluded in the QICDRC illustrates this point. In this case, the claim was dismissed in strict accordance with procedural rules. The claimant’s employee tragically died in a car accident while commuting to work on the company shuttle bus. Subsequently, the claimant brought up a case against the defendant, an insurance company for compensation.

The defendant had provided employee injury insurance and had agreed to extend coverage to include accidents occurring during the employees’ transportation from residences to work sites. The death of the claimant’s employee fell within the scope of this extended coverage. However, the insurance policy explicitly provided that the extended coverage would not replace the compulsory insurance mandated by the local authorities and that the insurance compensation would only cover the amount exceeding the mandatory insurance compensation. In essence, for vehicles involved in the accident, local regulations required mandatory insurance, and the policy’s extended coverage only addressed losses beyond what the mandatory insurance compensated. Therefore, in our case to determine the insurance compensation amount for this incident, it was essential to ascertain how much compensation the claimant had received from the mandatory insurance.

So the defendant applied that the claimant disclose the mandatory insurance policy and the details of any claims made under it. The court deemed the defendant’s application reasonable and issued an direction order requesting the claimant to disclose the relevant documents and information within a specified timeframe. However, the claimant failed to comply with the court’s order, neither dislosed any documentations nor give any explanation of reasonable excuse of its non-compliance. Consequently, the defendant applied for the dismissal of the claim, and the court granted this application, dismissed the claim. Articles of the procedural rules of the QICDRC stipulate that if a claimant or applicant fails to comply with a court order or violates procedural rules without reasonable excuse, the court may dismiss the claim or application in whole or in part.

Here are some reflections based on this case:

1. Procedural rules can play a crucial role in determining the merits of a case. In this instance, the claimant was ordered to disclose specific documents and related circumstances within a set timeframe. His failure to comply led the court to presume that the compensation received through mandatory insurance was sufficient to cover his losses, thereby indicating that no further compensation was owed under the insurance policy in question. The court’s dismissal of the claimant’s claim exemplifies the principle of resolving “substantive issues through procedural solutions.”

2. We must emphasize the implementation of the principle of facilitation of proof. While we often say “the burden of proof rests on him who claims,” the importance of facilitation-of-proof principle should not be ignored. Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Law stipulates that the people’s court shall investigate and collect evidence that parties cannot obtain on their own due to objective reasons, or that the court deems necessary for trial. Additionally, Article 112 of the Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law (Amended in 2022) states that if documentary evidence is in the control of the other party, the party bearing the burden of proof may request the court to order the other party to submit the evidence. If the request is justified, the court shall mandate the disclosure of documents, with costs incurred borne by the applicant. Should the other party refuse to provide documents without justifiable reasons, the court may determine the contents of the documentary evidence claimed by the applicant to be true. Articles 45-48 of the Supreme People’s Court’s Several Provisions on Evidence in Civil Proceedings (Amended in 2019) provide further detailed regulations on this principle. These provisions should be actively applied in civil and commercial trials, particularly in foreign-related civil and commercial cases.

3. The relevant laws and regulations in mainland China tend to be relatively conservative. For parties that refuse to disclose evidence, the only recourse is to presume the opposite evidence content as true. In contrast, many jurisdictions abroad have more stringent regulations. For instance, in the QICDRC case mentioned earlier, a refusal to disclose evidence could directly lead to the dismissal of the claim. This disparity merits further exploration. Especially regarding the specific requirements of evidence rules encountered in the handling of international commercial disputes, we should fully leverage their functions and use relevant procedural regulations to resolve practical issues.

*The original text is Chinese and has been translated into English for reference only. If there is any inconsistency or ambiguity between the Chinese version and the English version, the Chinese version shall prevail.