What Case Did the First Circuit Court of the Supreme People's Court Hear for the First Time?
At 9:00 AM on March 2, 2015, the gavel sounded for the first time at the First Circuit Court of the Supreme People's Court in Shenzhen, marking the inaugural trial since the circuit court's establishment. For the public, the key questions are: What case is being heard for the first time? Who is presiding? How effective is the trial? How did Professor Jiang Ping, who observed the trial in person, deliver his incisive commentary? For details, see the following text and images.
Case Name
Dispute over a sales contract between Jiangxi LDK Solar Hi-Tech Co., Ltd. (referred to as "LDK Solar," the appellant) and Guangxi Yuchai Machinery Group Co., Ltd. (referred to as "Yuchai Group," the appellee)
Case Type
Appeal from a second-instance trial
Basic Case Details
In 2011, the two parties became embroiled in a dispute over a supply agreement, with the subject matter of the contract in question exceeding 300 million yuan. Saiwei Company argued that the contract had taken effect and that Yuchai Group had failed to fulfill its contractual obligations, demanding that Yuchai Group bear corresponding liability for breach of contract. However, Yuchai Group contended that the contract had not taken effect and that it should not be held liable, leading to a dispute between the parties. In November 2014, the Guangxi Higher People's Court issued a first-instance judgment, dismissing Saiwei Company's claims. Dissatisfied, Saiwei Company appealed to the Supreme People's Court.
Coinciding with the establishment of the First Circuit Court and its commencement of case acceptance, this appeal fell within its jurisdiction. Consequently, this cross-provincial second-instance case was transferred from the Supreme People's Court headquarters to the First Circuit Court, becoming the first case to be heard in open court since the circuit court's inception.
Collegial Panel Members
Zhou Fan (Presiding Judge and Principal Judge): Male, Han ethnicity, from Tongzhou, Beijing, member of the Communist Party of China, born in May 1962, began working in August 1984, holds a university degree and a Bachelor of Laws. He worked for an extended period in the Economic Trial Division of the Supreme People's Court, becoming a judge in October 1996. He subsequently served as Deputy Chief Judge of the Second Civil Trial Division, Vice President of the Guangdong Provincial Higher People's Court (seconded), and Deputy Chief Judge of the Fourth Civil Trial Division. In December 2014, he was appointed Deputy Chief Judge of the First Circuit Court.
Li Wei (Principal Judge): Male, Hui ethnicity, from Cangzhou, Hebei, member of the Communist Party of China, born in December 1972, began working in July 1997, holds a graduate degree and a Doctor of Laws. He worked successively in the Case Filing Division and the Second Civil Trial Division of the Supreme People's Court, becoming an Assistant Judge in August 2003 and a Judge in October 2012.
Yu Hong (Presiding Judge): Female, Han ethnicity, from Dachang, Hebei, member of the Communist Party of China, born in February 1970, started working in July 1992, graduate degree, Doctor of Laws. Worked successively in the Judicial Rank Office, the Enforcement Bureau (Enforcement Work Office), and the Administrative Adjudication Division of the Supreme People's Court. Appointed as Assistant Judge in January 2005, and as Judge in August 2011.
Highlights of the Trial
Highlight 1: Random Case Assignment. The case was randomly assigned by computer, and the collegial panel was randomly formed.
Highlight 2: Convenient Attendance. After the trial notice was published, due to the large number of applicants for attendance and limited courtroom space, the Circuit Court invited journalists and members of the public who could not enter the courtroom to watch the live trial in the video conference room.
Highlight 3: Assistant Seating. After the establishment of judge assistant positions in courts at all levels, there has been inconsistency regarding whether judge assistants should attend trials and where they should sit on the bench. To facilitate assisting judges with related work after the trial, judge assistants attend the trial and sit alongside the court clerk below the bench.
Highlight 4: Convenience for Lawyers. The courtroom provided dressing rooms and rest areas for the lawyers appearing in court, and both sides' lawyers wore legal robes during the trial.
Highlight 5: Electronic Courtroom. Both parties and observers can view the trial transcript in real time through multiple electronic screens provided in the courtroom.
Highlight 6: Trial Effectiveness. Several scholars, including Jiang Ping, Shen Sibao, and Ye Lin, observed the trial. After the trial, the scholars stated that under the effective guidance of the presiding judge, both parties organized the presentation of evidence, cross-examination, and arguments around key issues such as whether the contract was established and effective, and whether there was liability for breach of contract. This protected the litigation rights of both parties, leveraged the functional role of the trial, demonstrated the initial effectiveness of the new judicial operation mechanism, and fully showcased the refreshing style of the First Circuit Court, the judges' rich trial experience, superb ability to control the trial, and the concept of impartial and neutral adjudication. Several experts also noted that the First Circuit Court, with a spirit of reform and innovation, practices a new operational mechanism, resolves disputes locally, eases conflicts locally, and facilitates litigation for the people, which is commendable and worthy of affirmation. Persistence will greatly enhance judicial credibility and win the praise of the people.
Highlight 7: Power Operation. Deputy Presiding Judge Zhou Fan presided over the trial as the presiding judge, with all members of the collegial panel serving as presiding judges, enjoying equal power. The collegial panel independently rendered its judgment, no longer submitting it to the court leadership for approval through administrative procedures.
Post-Trial Proceedings
Considering that both parties expressed a willingness to mediate and that issues such as submitting judicial suggestions to relevant administrative departments based on one party's opinion might arise, the presiding judge adjourned the court session, pending further handling based on the mediation outcome. The case was not pronounced in court.
(Shenglun Lawyer)
