Recently, Han Kun represented a client in the rendering of a final award in an international arbitration case. The arbitration was administered by the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), seated in London and governed by English law. The arbitral tribunal—comprising three distinguished British arbitrators—upheld the vast majority of Han Kun's client's claims and ordered the opposing party to bear the majority of our client's legal fees and arbitration costs, in accordance with the widely recognized international arbitration principle that "the unsuccessful party should pay the successful party's costs". The award represents a comprehensive victory for our client in the confirmation of its claims and an entirely satisfactory resolution of the dispute.
The case was handled by Han Kun's dispute resolution team members Jia (David) Gu and Zhijie (Jackie) Peng, with assistance from barrister Mr. Ben Olbourne of 39 Essex Chambers, who provided advice on English law matters and advocacy support during the proceeding. The successful outcome demonstrates Han Kun's exceptional capabilities in strategic planning, legal analysis, and international teamwork in handling complex cross-border disputes.
Case overview
This case arose from a major infrastructure construction project undertaken by a Chinese state-owned enterprise (SOE) in Pakistan. A dispute emerged regarding the payment of the settlement amount under a Settlement Agreement. Upon being engaged, Han Kun initiated arbitration proceedings based on the arbitration clause in the contract at issue before the ICC against the Pakistani entities, seeking payment of the full settlement amount under the agreement. Throughout the term, the Respondents were represented by counsels and barristers from both the United Kingdom and Pakistan, who raised multiple legal objections and mounted a comprehensive defense.
Confronted with complex procedural and substantive legal challenges, Han Kun—working in close coordination with our barrister—developed a multi-layered legal strategy, prepared detailed written submissions and legal analyses, and participated in vigorous oral hearings. Ultimately, Han Kun successfully persuaded the tribunal to uphold the client's claims on nearly all key issues, achieving a complete victory in the case.
Key challenges and Han Kun's professional approach
Jurisdictional challenge: The Respondents sought to defeat the tribunal's jurisdiction by relying on procedural defects in the Claimants' earlier litigation in Pakistan, alleging that the Claimants' conduct amounted to repudiation and waiver of the arbitration agreement, thereby rendering their claims inadmissible. Through meticulous legal research, Han Kun clarified the elements of repudiation under English law and, by highlighting the Respondents' own volte-face in their procedural stance, successfully dismantled the jurisdictional objection. This laid a solid foundation for the case to proceed smoothly to the merits stage.
Legal characterization of the payment obligation: With respect to the payment condition under the Settlement Agreement—which required approval by a Pakistani regulatory authority—the Respondents argued that their inability to make payment resulted from the authority's refusal to grant such approval. They therefore contended that the condition precedent to payment had not been fulfilled and that they bore no payment obligation. Han Kun successfully countered this argument by emphasizing that the Respondents' submission materials were incomplete or defective in multiple respects, reflecting their deliberate or grossly negligent misconduct. The tribunal ultimately accepted Han Kun's position and held that the Respondents had breached their implied obligations under the Settlement Agreement and were fully liable for the payment.
Alleged variation of payment terms: In an attempt to evade their payment obligation, the Respondents further contended that the parties' communications during multiple rounds of negotiation regarding the settlement payment constituted a variation, waiver, or estoppel under English law, thereby effecting a material modification of the original payment terms. Together with the barrister, Han Kun presented a precise and compelling legal argument that any contractual variation must be evidenced by a clear mutual arrangement between the parties—whether express or implied—and that mere inaction could never amount to conduct effecting a variation of contractual terms. The tribunal adopted similar reasoning and, accordingly, fully rejected the Respondents’ assertions.
Procedural conduct allegations: Throughout the arbitration, the Respondents repeatedly failed to cooperate, raised procedural objections lacking factual or legal basis, and even made unfounded accusations of procedural impropriety against the claimant. Han Kun remained professionally composed and focused on the substantive legal issues and the protection of the client's interests, while fully complying with all procedural directions issued by the tribunal. Ultimately, the tribunal dismissed all of the Respondents' claims alleging misconduct by the Claimants and seeking adverse cost orders, instead finding that it was the Respondents' own conduct that had caused unnecessary duplication and delay in the proceedings.
Intensive, multi-threaded international collaboration: The case involved a complex legal landscape, requiring not only in-depth research and analysis of key issues under English law but also interrelationship between the client's earlier litigation in Pakistan and the subsequent international arbitration proceedings. During the final hearing, Han Kun coordinated multiple domestic witnesses to testify remotely, overcoming challenges arising from time zone differences, technical constraints, and procedural requirements to ensure clear and effective presentation of the evidence. As lead counsel, Han Kun effectively managed the overall strategy, maintained seamless coordination with the barrister, and ensured efficient teamwork under a high-intensity, multi-jurisdictional environment—ultimately delivering a high-quality and successful outcome for the client.
Significance of the case
Full realization of client interests: In this case, the arbitral tribunal upheld nearly all of our client's substantive claims and ordered the opposing party to bear the vast majority of legal costs. This not only directly safeguarded the client's core economic interests but also provided strong endorsement of its legitimate claims and commercial position.
A representative model for complex international arbitration: The case successfully addressed the full spectrum of issues—from jurisdiction and substantive liability to cost allocation—demonstrating Han Kun's comprehensive capability in managing complex international arbitration proceedings. It serves as a valuable reference for Chinese enterprises in protecting their overseas interests.
Strong evidence of professional expertise: Faced with the Respondents' multi-layered legal defenses, Han Kun leveraged deep understanding and precise application of international arbitration procedures and English contract law principles to counter each argument, underscoring Han Kun's exceptional professional strength in handling complex cross-border disputes.
Client feedback
As a large Chinese SOE, the client highly commended Han Kun for its legal expertise and outstanding case coordination throughout the proceedings. The client noted that this comprehensive victory not only successfully recouped significant economic losses but also stands as a classic example of a Chinese law firm effectively safeguarding Chinese company's interests on the international legal stage.
