Xing Xiusong is a partner of Beijing Global Law Office. He currently serves as a Vice Chairman of the Arbitration and ADR Committee of ICC China (since 2017), an arbitrator on the panel of China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC, since 1997), a member of the Board of CIETAC (since 2014), a member of CIETAC’s Expert Consultation Committee (since 2014), an arbitrator on panel of Hong Kong International Arbitration Center (HKIAC, since 2012), an arbitrator on the panel of Kuala Lumpur Regional Center for Arbitration (KLRCA, since 2009), a mediator on the panel of CCPIT/China Chamber of International Commerce Mediation Center (since 2003), a member of the International Dispute Resolution Group (“IDR Group”).
Xing Xiusong has been continuously recommended by Chambers & Partners as “a leading lawyer in Dispute Resolution: Arbitration” in Asia, and was awarded “Arbitration Lawyer of the Year” in 2016 by China Law & Practice.
Xing Xiusong advises and represents foreign and Chinese clients on dispute resolution matters in relation to Chinese-foreign joint ventures, foreign direct investment in China, construction projects, technology transfer and license agreements, trademark licensing, manufacturing and distribution agreements, loan agreements and project finance, international sale of goods, anti-monopoly and unfair competition, etc., by means of negotiation, mediation, adjudication, arbitration and litigation.
He has represented clients in arbitration proceedings before international arbitration institutions, including China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC); Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC), ICC International Court of Arbitration (ICC), American Arbitration Association (AAA), Hong Kong International Arbitration Center (HKIAC), Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) and the Japan Commercial Arbitration Association (JCAA). (More than 200 cases)
He has served as an arbitrator in international arbitration proceedings at CIETAC, ICC, SCC, and in ad hoc arbitration proceedings. (More than 200 cases)
He has represented clients in court proceedings before all levels of PRC People's Courts, ranging from District Courts to the Supreme People's Court. (More than 100 cases)
He has acted as an expert witness on Chinese law in proceedings before The High Court of Justice of London and the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce
Mainland China and Hong Kong recently signed the Arrangement Concerning Mutual Assistance in Court-Ordered Interim Measures in Aid of Arbitral Proceedings by the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Historically, it has been impossible for parties to arbitral proceedings with a seat outside mainland China to obtain interim measures from mainland courts. This situation will change completely after the arrangement comes into force.
It is generally accepted that when a claim or a debt is assigned, the arbitration agreement attached thereto is also assigned. However, the Supreme People's Court has opined that an arbitration clause contained in a contract for carriage of goods by sea was not binding on an insurer that stepped into the shoes of the insured consignee by way of subrogation.
The Supreme People's Court recently issued a direction that an arbitral award should be refused recognition and enforcement as the arbitration concerned an inheritance dispute and was therefore not arbitrable. However, a request for a declaration of title to a 50% equity share in a company by way of succession could be characterized as a commercial matter.
The Supreme People's Court has upheld the Chinese courts' first decision on an arbitral award issued by a truncated tribunal. Recognition and enforcement were refused in accordance with Article V(1)(d) of the New York Convention. However, Chinese arbitration law and practice do not absolutely reject an arbitral award issued by a truncated tribunal.
For the first time since China acceded to the New York Convention in 1987, a foreign arbitration award has been refused recognition and enforcement in China on public policy grounds. Although the court apparently intended to set a precedent on these grounds, the case leaves open a number of significant questions.