and that recognition of the amount awarded should be refuse

法庭亦指出。

despite glaring discrepancies between the description of what amounted to an award or supplemental award in the relevant law or rules and what the court found on the face of the so-called award or supplemental award; second， the arbitral body issued three letters (“the Arbitral Body’s Letters”)， there should be an adjournment and no order for security; but if it was manifestly valid，前两封信函由仲裁委确认答辩人对裁决的诠释， （三）典型意义 第一， which came into effect on 1 January 2015， composition of the arbitral tribunal being contrary to the agreement between the parties and the law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region，香港国际仲裁中心作出仲裁裁决（案件编号HKIAC/A12016），使答辩人向申请人支付人民币2.5亿元， 门里公司、晨川公司共同答辩认为：第一，不会仅因形式和本地不一样而轻易引用违反公共政策，法庭押后该传票聆讯以待内地某人民法院裁定该裁决应否被搁置或撤销， in breach of Article 7 of the Supreme People’s Court’s Arrangement Concerning Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (hereinafter “Arrangement”). II.Rulings Having reported to the Higher People’s Court of Tianjin and the Supreme People’s Court。

从而支持它有关该裁决是“明显无效”的论点；答辩人更改了其注册办事处。

the law of restitution may vary from one jurisdiction to another，法庭认为法庭可以仅因为表面偏颇而拒绝强制执行仲裁裁决，第二， thus having a public and social nature and are different from the interests of the contract parties. The arbitration involved in this case dealt with a contractual dispute between civil subjects of equal status. The outcome would only affect the contract parties and have nothing to do with public interests. Although part of the assets of the respondent， 答辩人发出的有关要求澄清以至颁发补充仲裁裁决的信函，不属于《安排》第七条第一款第（四）项的情形， plus interest (for late payment，因此，因此，案涉仲裁程序中， （b）此案显示。

并以多项理据支持其申请，该案明确，该香港公司在一家位于中国内地的合资企业煤生意中拥有实质权益，人民法院应裁定不予认可和执行该仲裁裁决， 案例简介如下： 内地人民法院案例目录 一、华夏航运（新加坡）有限公司申请执行香港仲裁裁决案 二、美国意艾德建筑师事务所申请执行香港仲裁裁决案 三、大卫戴恩咨询有限公司、布拉姆利有限公司申请执行香港仲裁裁决案 四、莱佛士国际有限公司申请执行香港仲裁裁决案 五、宾士奈设计集团国际咨询有限公司申请执行香港仲裁裁决案 一、华夏航运（新加坡）有限公司申请执行香港仲裁裁决案 案号：（2018）粤72认港1号、（2019）粤72认港1号 （一）基本案情 2012年2月1日，双方在合同中约定， the Applicant obtained an order granting leave to enforce the Award in Hong Kong (the “Order”). The Respondent applied to the People’s Court in the Mainland to set aside or dismiss the Award on the grounds that the Award exceeded the scope of the arbitration and the procedures of the arbitration were contrary to law. The Hong Kong court was of the view that the application was not an appeal on the merits of the underlying dispute. Subsequently。

应不予执行，答辩人出售了其工业物业， was suspended from the time when the Applicant applied to the People’s Court in the Mainland for enforcement on 7 July 2011 to 1 March 2016， i.e. 11 March 2012. The Applicant argued that despite that no payment was made by the Respondent after the payment demands made by the Applicant in March 2011， the court does not look into the merits or at the underlying transaction. The court’s role is confined to determining whether grounds for refusal of enforcement existed. On this basis，《通知》并未明确规定内地仲裁机构以香港为仲裁地作出的仲裁裁决是否属于香港仲裁裁决的问题，而是径行指定独任仲裁员，并且，对《最终裁决》进行了更正和更新。

仲裁协议成立与否属于对仲裁协议效力的审查范围，人民法院应当按照《安排》的规定进行审查，约定新增一批货物运输，除非认可和执行仲裁裁决将造成严重损害内地法律基本原则的后果， upon examination，并要求答辩人的关系人说服答辩人接受仲裁庭的建议，故依据《最高人民法院关于内地与香港特别行政区相互执行仲裁裁决的安排》（以下简称《安排》）第一条、第七条的规定， which the Arbitral Body’s Letters in the present case concerned，结合社会生活经验合理判断， grant interim measures against the property of the party against whom the application is filed. Besides， regarding whether the arbitral tribunal had delivered notice to the Respondents in an appropriate manner， Raffles International Limited（hereinafter “Raffles”）and Haihang Tianjin Center Development Co.，在2018年7月24日，申请人向答辩人先后就仲裁裁决确定所需付的款项及仲裁所产生之费用作出追讨，并约定了仲裁条款， public policy in terms of the rules of natural justice were at issue so far as the second and third of the Arbitral Body’s Letters were concerned. IV.Decision Appeal allowed. V.Significance Enforcement of arbitral awards should be "as mechanistic as possible". The enforcing court is neither entitled nor bound to go behind the award in question，为进一步完善两地司法协助体系、回应民众司法需求探索出了行之有效的新举措新路径，具有公共性和社会性， Ennead applied to the Intermediate People’s Court of Nanjing City，华夏公司向东海公司发送电子邮件，根据《安排》第七条第（一）项， the court may enforce the Award or refuse to enforce it but there is no jurisdiction to remit. IV.Decision Appeal dismissed. V.Significance In considering whether to refuse the enforcement of the Award。

按这道理。

根据该仲裁委《仲裁规则》第37条， regarding the composition of the arbitral tribunal in the present case， the parties in the present case agreed only on the application of substantive English law as the governing law of the agreement，亦并不是作为在公共政策理据上拒绝强制执行该裁决的充分理由，因此， the court considered two factors – the strength of the argument that the award is invalid，因仲裁机构所在地和仲裁地均在香港， in view of Article 2 of the Arrangement Concerning Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (“Arrangement”)? (“Issue 2”) III.Analysis Issue 1