Your current location >> Cases
Court: Fine 100,000 yuan for Deliberate Evasion
[2022-07-07]

   

Refuse to Receive Summons and Provide Invalid Service Address... Court: Fine 100,000 yuan for Deliberate Evasion, Delay and Obstruction of Proceedings

Refusing to receive court summons, obstructing service, raising objections to jurisdiction and filing an appeal despite explicit jurisdiction clause, refusing to answer the call, refusing to appear in court, providing an invalid service address...

[Case Review]

The plaintiff, a small and micro technology company with a registered capital just over 1,000,000 yuan, brought the defendant, a pharmaceutical company, to the Jing'an District People's Court of Shanghai ("Shanghai Jing'an Court") for delay in returning the plaintiff’s deposit of 1.5 million yuan.

During the trial, the judge in charge and judge assistant made great efforts to get in touch with the actual controller of the pharmaceutical company, who had no objection to the arrears but hoped for a grace period and mediation with the plaintiff. However, the response documents sent after mediation to the address provided by the pharmaceutical company were deliberately rejected for many times.

Later, the pharmaceutical company played hide-and-seek with the judge and disappeared. Until the last day of the defense period after expiration of announcement, the pharmaceutical company, despite a mutual agreement in the contract that all disputes arising shall be submitted to the Shanghai Jing’an Court, mailed an Application for Objection to Jurisdiction and a petition for appeal to the court, requesting this case be transferred to another court, and filed an appeal for revoking the non-existent ruling on jurisdiction objection. 

The judge in charge tried to contact the pharmaceutical company again, requesting it to explain the jurisdiction objection and appeal in court, but the pharmaceutical company "disappeared" again. Then, it intentionally wrote a false address in the Confirmation of Service Address submitted to the court.

[Case Study]

After the trial, the Shanghai Jing'an Court held that the pharmaceutical company’s act of deliberately evading, delaying and obstructing proceedings went beyond the legitimate boundary and reasonable scope of the exercise of rights, which not only wasted judicial resources and lowered judicial efficiency, but also seriously damaged the legitimate rights and interests of the technology company.

To maintain the litigation order of good faith, guide the parties to exercise their rights correctly and reasonably, and advocate positive value orientation, the Shanghai Jing'an Court decided to fine the pharmaceutical company 100,000 yuan according to law for abusing its litigation right, disturbing the judicial order and obstructing the normal litigation activities. 

The parties in civil litigation shall have equal litigation rights. When participating in litigation activities or exercising the rights of objection to jurisdiction, appeal, etc., they shall adhere to the principle of good faith. In no way shall they damage the legitimate rights and interests of the other party or social public interests, excise their rights beyond due legitimacy and rationality, and violate the systems of service, objection to jurisdiction, appeal, etc.

 

[Relevant Laws]

I. Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China

Article 13 Civil proceedings shall follow the principle of good faith.

...

Article 118 A fine imposed against an individual shall not be more than 100,000 yuan. A fine imposed against a unit shall not be less than 50,000 yuan but not be more than 1 million yuan.

...

Article 119 Summoning a person by means of arrest, the imposition of a fine and detention shall be subject to approval by the court presidents.

...

Written decisions shall be issued for the imposition of fines and detention. If an offender is dissatisfied with a decision, he may apply once to the immediate superior people's court for review. Execution of the decision shall not be suspended during the period of review.

II. Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China

Article 176 Where any litigant participant or other person has any of the following acts, a people's court may handle it in accordance with the provision of Article 110 of the Civil Procedure Law:  

...

(3) other activities disturbing the court order and obstructing judicial activities.

...

(Authors: Lin Bin, Li Zhentao, Shanghai Jing’an Court)

>> Chinese Version
The English version of this article, which is translated from the Chinese version by CTPC, is for reference only and shall be subject to the corresponding contents on the Chinese webpage.
Copyright @2014 Shanghai High People's Court, All Rights Reserved.