In Taiwan, a creditor is solely responsible for taking the initiative for civil enforcement (ie, commencing the compulsory enforcement procedure). As such, no governmental authority is accountable for initiating such proceedings for creditors.  In the pre-adjudication phase and post-adjudication phase, options that a creditor may adopt to identify a debtor’s assets vary.

Pre-adjudication Phase

Registered assets

For assets that are registered with the governing authorities, including real property, patents, and trade marks, ownership information of these assets is accessible to the general public under certain circumstances, as detailed further below. 

Real property

Information on the title to land and buildings, including the name, ID number, and address of the owner, is recorded by the Department of Land Administration of each jurisdiction (collectively, the “Land Register Authority”). 

However, without a court order (see the paragraphs below concerning property disclosure orders to third parties), the information a creditor may obtain from the Land Register Authority is very limited. 

While a transcript of registered information regarding a specific real property ("Type 2 transcript”) is available to the public, the name, ID number, and the address of the owner are partially redacted when the owner is a natural person. As a result, it can be challenging to identify what real property the debtor owns if the debtor is a natural person.

Further, a Type 2 transcript is only available when a creditor provides a specific land number or building number for investigation to the Land Register Authority. In this scenario, a fishing expedition for real property owned by the debtor is impractical.

Patents

Patent information is publicly available. A creditor may search for all registered patents owned by a debtor by using the Taiwan patent search system maintained by the Intellectual Property Office.

Trade marks

Trade mark information is publicly available. A creditor may search for all registered trade marks owned by a debtor by using the trade mark search system maintained by the Intellectual Property Office. However, this search system may present only a partial picture of the trade marks owned by a debtor, as registration is not required to use a trade mark in Taiwan.

Provisional attachment order

A creditor holding monetary claims or claims exchangeable for monetary claims may seek a provisional attachment order over a debtor to prevent a debtor from transferring his/her assets. To this end, a creditor must convince the court that it will be “impossible or extremely difficult” to satisfy the creditor’s claims by compulsory enforcement upon a final and binding judgment in the future, and hence that there is a need for the court to issue a provisional attachment order before or during litigation. If the creditor fails to persuade the court that the forgoing “impossible or extremely difficult” requirement is satisfied, the court may exercise its discretion and request the creditor to provide a security as an alternative. In general, such security would be a sum equal to one third of the value of underlying claims.

Property disclosure order to a third party

A provisional attachment order allows a creditor to initiate compulsory enforcement proceedings against a debtor. Therefore, a creditor may apply to the court to query the relevant authorities, organisations, or persons knowledgeable of a debtor's assets (collectively, the “knowledgeable third parties”) during the compulsory enforcement proceedings (Article 19(2) of the Compulsory Enforcement Act). 

Typically, the court will issue an official order letter requiring such knowledgeable third parties to report assets owned by a debtor (“property disclosure order to a third party”), such as for the following:

• Local tax office – a creditor may obtain a list of personal income and a list of properties (including real properties and vehicles) of a debtor from a local tax office. 
• Taiwan Depository & Clearing Corporation – a creditor may identify stocks held by a debtor from information provided by the Taiwan Depository & Clearing Corporation.
• Life Insurance Association of the Republic of China – a creditor may identify insurance policies held by a debtor from information provided by the Life Insurance Association of the Republic of China.

Post-adjudication Phase

Property disclosure order to a third party

A creditor may also apply to the court to issue a property disclosure order to a third party during the post-adjudication phase, as detailed above.

Property disclosure order to a debtor

Pursuant to Article 20(1) of the Compulsory Enforcement Act, the court may issue a property disclosure order to a debtor, requiring a debtor to report the status of his/her property, subject to certain conditions (the “property disclosure order to a debtor”). If a debtor fails to provide the report within the designated time limit, it is possible for the court to place the debtor into custody in accordance with Article 20(3) of the Compulsory Enforcement Act. However, in practice the court rarely issues a property disclosure order to a debtor, and placing a debtor in custody is even rarer. 

Article 4(1) of the Compulsory Enforcement Act provides several types of enforceable titles, as listed below. It is worth noting that, unlike a final judgment, an interlocutory judgment rendered at the intermediate stage of civil proceedings is not an enforceable title.

Final and Binding Judgment

There are three types of final judgment available from the courts in Taiwan:

• a judgment of performance;
• a declaratory judgment (ie, a court decision stating the exact nature of the underlying legal matter and resolving legal uncertainties between both parties); and
• a formative judgment (ie, a court decision directly creating, altering or ending legal relations between the parties).

However, only a judgment of performance is enforceable. Declaratory and formative judgments are not enforceable because their declarative or formative effect takes force automatically upon such a judgment becoming final.

Other Enforceable Titles

Other enforceable titles include:

• –preliminary relief such as provisional seizure, provisional injunction, or provisional enforcement;
• –settlement or mediation pursuant to the Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure, ie, where made in court or initiated through petition to the court;
• –a notarised document authorising the compulsory enforcement;
• –a ruling of the court permitting auction of the mortgaged or pledged collateral;
• –a ruling of the court granting compulsory enforcement of a promissory note; and
• –a payment order.

Monetary Claims

The enforcement procedure applicable to monetary claims depends on the nature of the subject of enforcement. 

• Where the asset to be enforced is movable property, the compulsory enforcement shall be carried out by means of attachment, auction, or sale (Article 45 of the Compulsory Enforcement Act).
• Where the asset to be enforced is immovable property, the compulsory enforcement shall be carried out by means of attachment, auction, and compulsory administration (Article 75(1) of the Compulsory Enforcement Act).
• Where the asset to be enforced is a vessel or an aircraft, the compulsory enforcement of immovable property shall apply mutatis mutandis (Article 114(1) of the Compulsory Enforcement Act).
• Where the asset to be enforced is a receivable claim against a third party, the court shall render a seizure order to prohibit the debtor from collecting/disposing of such claim and to prohibit that third party from repaying the debtor, and the court may, at its discretion, further issue the following types of orders (Article 115 of the Compulsory Enforcement Act):
1. a court order to allow the creditor to collect or transfer the claim to the creditor; or
2. a court order to require a third party to pay the receivable owed to the debtor to the court instead, following which the court will forward such payment to the creditor.

Despite the foregoing, assets such as welfare benefits, social assistance, and subsidy receivables of a debtor shall not be subject to compulsory enforcement proceedings. Further, a seizure order rendered by the court over the salary of a debtor shall not exceed the amount of one third of such salary.

Non-monetary Claims

Non-monetary claims include: (i) claims for the delivery of things; and (ii) claims for action and no-action.

In respect of claims for the delivery of things, if the asset to be enforced is a movable property, where a debtor fails to observe the court order requiring delivery of such property, the court may seize the property and deliver it directly to a creditor.

If, upon a court order, it is immovable property that must be delivered, then where a debtor fails to observe such order, the court may remove the property from the debtor's possession and allow the creditor to take possession thereof. In practice, a court clerk will be present at the location of the real property to be enforced, usually together with local police officers, to take physical control of such immovable property from the debtor.

Where the enforceable title is related to claims for action and no-action, the court may impose the default surcharge (ie, a sum of money as penalty for non-compliance) on a debtor or even place him/her into custody if such claims are unable to be carried out by a third party instead. 

For non-property enforcement, the cost of enforcement proceedings is fixed at NTD3,000. For property enforcement, where the amount or value of the subject of enforcement is less than NTD5,000, no enforcement costs will be charged by the court; where the enforcement amount or value is above NTD5,000, the enforcement costs charged by the court are 80 cents for every NTD100.

In principle, a compulsory enforcement proceeding shall be closed within one year and four months, as required by the internal regulations of the judicial system. Among the various subjects of enforcement, an enforcement carried out by a court order against a debtor’s payment claims owed by a third party is a relatively time-efficient enforcement option, as the auction and sale process can be avoided.

There are no post-judgment procedures in Taiwan for determining what assets the defendant holds and where they are located. A creditor shall present to the court what assets are owned by a debtor and hence are subject to the compulsory enforcement proceeding. Therefore, how to identify the assets of a debtor is the key point when it comes to compulsory enforcement. Measures to obtain such information may found in 1.1 Options to Identify Another Party’s Asset Position.

A debtor or an interested party can file a petition with or raise an objection to the following matters:

• the enforcement order (eg, objecting on the grounds that the enforceable title has not yet been adjudicated/created);
• the method of compulsory enforcement performed by the court stenographer or process server;
• the procedures that the court stenographer, or process server, must comply with; and
• the infringement of a debtor’s or an interested third party’s interests raised herein – however, this petition or objection will not suspend an ongoing compulsory enforcement proceeding.

In addition to the foregoing, a debtor may file an objection suit against a creditor before the court, if any event arises after the enforceable title is created that extinguishes or prevents the creditor's claim (eg, where the debtor has repaid the debts after a final and binding judgment is made). Merely introducing an objection suit will not automatically suspend the compulsory enforcement proceeding, while the court may, in necessary circumstances or after determining an adequate security upon a debtor’s petition, make a ruling to suspend the compulsory enforcement.

As described in 2.1 Types of Domestic Judgments, declaratory judgments and formative judgments are not enforceable.

There is no central register of all judgments in Taiwan. However, with some exceptions (see further below), most court judgments are published on the Law and Regulations Retrieving System maintained by the Judicial Yuan. This official online system is accessible without any login requirements and is free of charge.

To protect parties’ privacy and interests, certain types of court judgments are not published on the Law and Regulations Retrieving System, including:

• –juvenile protection and juvenile criminal cases;
• –sexual assault criminal cases;
• –domestic violence incidents;
• –civil proceedings cases involving provision of evidence;
• –civil enforcement cases involving confidentiality; and
• –cases involving trade secrets owned by the disputed party/third party.

Titles from Vietnam

The Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Vietnam and the Vietnam Economic and Cultural Office in Taipei have entered into the Agreement between the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Vietnam and the Vietnam Economic and Cultural Office in Taipei on Judicial Assistance in Civil Matters (the “Taiwan-Vietnam Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement”) dated 12 April 2010 for the purpose of strengthening co-operation in judicial assistance in civil-related matters between Vietnam and Taiwan. According to Article 19 of the Taiwan-Vietnam Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement, recognition and enforcement within the territory of one of the contractual parties in respect of civil judgments rendered by the other party shall be subject to the Taiwan-Vietnam Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement.

In the case of enforcing a Vietnamese judgment in Taiwan, the creditor holding a judgment rendered by Vietnamese authorities/courts shall file a lawsuit in Taiwan to obtain a court decision of recognition and enforcement first; the creditor may then initiate the subsequent compulsory enforcement of the Vietnamese judgment. Pursuant to Article 20 of the Taiwan-Vietnam Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement, Taiwan courts shall recognise and enforce a judgment rendered by Vietnamese authorities/courts only if the following requirements are met:

• Finality – such a judgment is legally effective, binding and final, and also enforceable in accordance with Vietnamese law.
• Competent authority – such a judgment is rendered by the courts, the prosecutor’s office and other authorities having jurisdiction over civil matters, and is made in accordance with Vietnamese law.

• Observation of the laws of Taiwan and lis pendens – such a judgment rendered by Vietnamese authorities/courts has come into force and is not contrary to Taiwanese law; or Taiwanese courts have not recognised and enforced the effective decision rendered by a third state in the same litigation; or the same case has not been brought to a Taiwanese court.
• Due process – such a judgment rendered by Vietnamese authorities/courts has been issued in proceedings where the procedural rights of litigants or their legal representatives have been properly secured.
• Security and public order in Taiwan – the recognition and enforcement of such a judgment rendered by Vietnamese authorities/courts shall not prejudice Taiwan’s security, public policy or contradict fundamental principles of Taiwanese law.

Titles from China

Without formal procedure to recognise a judgment rendered by the Chinese court, such judgments are unenforceable in Taiwan. Enforcement of Chinese judgments is subject to the Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (the “Cross-Strait Relations Act”), Article 74(1) of which prescribes that, prior to the compulsory enforcement proceedings, a creditor has to petition to a Taiwanese court for recognition of such judgment. Requirements for such recognition include that:

• it is a final and irrevocable civil ruling or judgment;
• the judgment is not contrary to the public order or good morals of Taiwan; and
• the binding civil judgment made in Taiwan may obtain a recognition order or may be an enforceable title in China (ie, reciprocal requirement).

Titles from Other Jurisdictions

Foreign judgments from other jurisdictions are automatically recognised. However, before initiating the compulsory enforcement proceedings of a foreign judgment, a creditor must file a lawsuit to the local court for permission to enforce. The court will not conduct any review of the merits of the disputed foreign judgment, but rather will only assess whether any circumstances exist as set forth in the negative list for non-recognition stipulated in Article 402(1) of the Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure (more details are outlined in 3.3 Categories of Foreign Judgments Not Enforced).

There is no variation between enforcement of different types of foreign judgments in Taiwan.  However, the Taiwan Supreme Court has held that a foreign judgment that awards punitive damages shall not be recognised and is unenforceable in Taiwan.

Titles from Vietnam and China

For titles from Vietnam and China, the prerequisites for enforcing such titles in Taiwan are described in 3.1 Legal Issues concerning Enforcement of Foreign Judgments. Unless these prerequisites are satisfied, titles from Vietnam and China are neither recognised nor enforceable in Taiwan.

Titles from Other Jurisdictions

Regarding titles from other jurisdictions, including titles from Hong Kong and Macao, such titles are automatically recognised but a creditor must still obtain a judgment of enforcement rendered by the Taiwanese court to initiate the compulsory enforcement proceedings, as explained further below.

Framework for Enforceability

Pursuant to Article 4-1(1) of the Compulsory Enforcement Act, a foreign judgment award is enforceable only after the Taiwanese court has approved its enforcement by a judgment. In principle, the Taiwanese court will approve the enforcement of a final and irrevocable foreign judgment award, unless such judgment involves any of the circumstances enumerated under Article 402(1) of the Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure.

Jurisdiction

The foreign court that rendered the judgment must have jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to the Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure. 

Service of Process

Where a default judgment is rendered against the losing defendant, such foreign judgment is not enforceable in Taiwan. However, if the notice or summons of the initiation of action had been legally served in a reasonable time in the foreign country or had been served through judicial assistance provided under Taiwanese law, then the Taiwanese court may still permit the enforcement of the foreign judgment.

Public Order and Good Morals in Taiwan

Where the foreign judgment is incompatible with “public order and good morals” in Taiwan, the Taiwanese court shall not render the judgment of enforcement of such foreign judgment. 

Reciprocity

Where there exists no mutual recognition between the foreign country and Taiwan, the judgment made by the court of said country will not be enforced in Taiwan. 

In view of its contested political status, Taiwan may not always be able to enter into treaties with other countries to establish the principle of reciprocity in the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. Therefore, Taiwanese courts tend to relax the requirement of reciprocity when it comes to the approval of a foreign judgment. In a judgment of 2013, the Taiwan Supreme Court ruled that if the foreign country does not expressly refuse to recognise the validity of the judgment made by the Taiwanese court, the Taiwanese court shall, from the perspective of reciprocity and adopting a rather liberal approach, take the initiative to recognise the validity of the judgment of that foreign country.

Titles from Vietnam and China 

As the Cross-Strait Relations Act does not specify how to determine the jurisdiction for the procedure of recognising a Chinese judgment, the Taiwan Supreme Court ruled in 1999 that the Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure shall apply by analogy. In principle, the creditor shall petition the court located in the place of the debtor's domicile for recognising titles from China.

Titles from Vietnam have similar issues as stated above. However, there is no precedent on the determination of the jurisdiction for procedures to recognise a Vietnamese judgment. The authors believe that the reasoning adopted by the Taiwan Supreme Court in the aforementioned 1999 judgment will also apply to a Vietnamese judgment.

Titles from Other Jurisdictions

As elaborated in the preceding paragraphs, to enforce a foreign judgement, one must first file a lawsuit to the district court for permission to enforce. Pursuant to Article 4-1(2) of the Compulsory Enforcement Act, the competent court that shall approve the enforcement of a foreign judgment reward shall be the court located in the place of the debtor’s domicile. Where the debtor has no domicile within Taiwanese territory, a creditor is entitled to bring such suit before the court where the object to be enforced is located or where the enforcement action shall be performed.

Appeal and Re-appeal

If the court considers that the prerequisites as set forth in 3.1 Legal Issues concerning Enforcement of Foreign Judgments are met (in the case of titles rendered from Vietnam and China) or the non-recognition circumstances as set forth in 3.3 Categories of Foreign Judgments Not Enforced do not exist (in the case of titles rendered from other jurisdictions), the court will deliver the judgment in favour of the creditor to recognise/enforce such foreign titles.

However, the losing party in the recognition of a foreign judgment/permission of enforcement suit may appeal, and the losing party in the appellate court may further re-appeal. The creditor will not be able to initiate compulsory enforcement proceedings until judgment of recognition/enforcement becomes binding and final (ie, unappealable).

Costs

Titles from China

To apply for recognition of a Chinese judgment before a Taiwanese court, the petitioner must first pay the district court a non-litigation fee ranging from NTD500 to NTD5,000, subject to the amount of the claim(s). If the losing party decides to appeal or re-appeal, a fee of NTD1,000 will be additionally charged by each appeal/re-appeal court.

Titles from other jurisdictions

To apply for enforcement of a foreign judgment award in Taiwan, the plaintiff must first pay the Taiwanese court a litigation fee of approximately 1.1% of the amount awarded by the foreign judgment before the proceedings begin. If the losing party decides to appeal, a fee of approximately 1.65% of the amount awarded by the foreign judgment will be charged by the appellate court. 

If the party that paid the litigation fees eventually obtains a final and irrevocable judgment for enforcement of the foreign award in its favour, that party may further request the opposing party to compensate the winning party for the litigation fees charged by the court.

Time

There are no official statistics in respect of the time taken to enforce a foreign judgment. Based on the authors’ past experience, the procedure for enforcement judgments/recognition judgments does not involve any review of the merits, and the time spent on such procedures is usually about two to three months.

Common Arguments

As the recognition/enforcement of a foreign judgment (whether made by a Vietnamese, Chinese, or other foreign-jurisdiction court) requires such judgment to be made with due process, common arguments raised by a debtor (the losing defendant in the previous proceedings that rendered the foreign judgment) include that:

• the debtor’s procedural rights were protected due to the default judgment being rendered in the absence of the participation of the debtor; and
• legal documents were not served in the ways required by Taiwanese law.

There are Taiwanese judgments of the opinion that the plaintiff shall bear the burden of proof that:

• the debtor has appeared in front of the foreign court to participate in the proceeding that rendered the foreign judgment; or
• the foreign court’s summons notifying the opening of the foreign court proceedings were legally served on the debtor. 

A Supreme Court judgment made in 2011 further elaborates that, in the case where a foreign court serves a defendant located in Taiwan with a notice or order stating the commencement of the proceedings, such notice or order must be served in accordance with the procedures stipulated in the Law in Supporting Foreign Courts on Consigned Cases, the Handling Procedures for Judicial Assistance Matters, and other relevant laws and regulations in Taiwan. Also, such notice or order must allow the defendant sufficient time to prepare his/her argument. Therefore, if the plaintiff's lawyers simply send legal documents to the debtor by mail, or hand the documents directly to the debtor, such service of process may not satisfy the requirements of Article 402(1)(ii) of the Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure. 

After Recognition/Permission of Enforcement

After the recognition/permission of enforcement of a foreign judgment, a debtor may still challenge such enforcement by filing an objection suit on the grounds that the claims have been extinguished or prevented due to reasons that arose after the court recognised/permitted the enforcement of the foreign judgment. Further details may be found in 2.5 Challenging Enforcement of Domestic Judgments.

Domestic Arbitral Awards

To enforce a domestic arbitral award, one must obtain an enforcement order rendered by the competent court beforehand, except where the parties agree in writing that the arbitral award may be enforced without such enforcement order and the subject matter of the arbitral award concerns one of the following (see Article 37(2) of the Taiwan Arbitration Law):

• payment of a specified sum of money or certain amount of fungible goods or securities; or
• delivery of a specified movable property.

Arbitral Awards from China

It is worth noting that Chinese arbitral awards are treated differently from arbitral awards seated in other offshore jurisdictions (Hong Kong and Macao are excluded here as the Taiwan Arbitration Law applies mutatis mutandis to arbitral awards made in these two areas). Pursuant to Article 74 of the Cross-Strait Relations Act, a Taiwanese court shall confirm/recognise civil arbitral awards made in the seat of China provided that:

• the arbitral award is not contrary to public order and good morals in Taiwan; and
• arbitral awards made in Taiwan may obtain a recognition order or may be enforceable titles in China (ie, reciprocal requirement).

Arbitral Awards from Other Jurisdictions

Arbitration rules and foreign arbitral awards

Pursuant to Article 47(1) of the Taiwan Arbitration Law, a foreign arbitral award refers to:

• an arbitral award seated outside the territory of Taiwan; or
• an arbitral award made in accordance with foreign laws even though seated within the jurisdiction of Taiwan.

Under the above definition, an arbitral award seated in Taiwan is not necessarily a domestic arbitral award. Further, a Supreme Court judgment of 2022 is of the opinion that an arbitration award made in accordance with the ICC Arbitration Rules within the territory of Taiwan is deemed a foreign arbitration award.

Recognition and enforcement

To enforce a foreign arbitral award, one must obtain a recognition decision rendered by the Taiwanese court beforehand. According to Article 49 of the Taiwan Arbitration Law, an application for recognition of a foreign arbitral award shall be dismissed if any of the following circumstances applies:

Being contrary to public order and good morals in Taiwan – the Taiwanese court will refuse to recognise a foreign arbitral award if such arbitral award is contrary to public order or good morals in Taiwan. Although Taiwan is not a contractual party to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (the “New York Convention”), this public-order requirement is to some extent comparable to the public-policy exception under the New York Convention (Article V 2(b) of the New York Convention).

Arbitrability – the Taiwanese court will refuse to recognise a foreign arbitral award if such award concerns a dispute that cannot be solved through an arbitration approach under the laws of Taiwan (ie, lack of arbitrability).

Reciprocity – the Taiwanese court will refuse to recognise a foreign arbitral award if the country where the arbitral award was made or whose laws govern the arbitral award does not recognise the arbitral awards of Taiwan. 

The de facto application of the New York Convention

Owing to its contested political status, Taiwan is currently not a contractual party to the New York Convention. Nevertheless, the Taiwan Arbitration Law has adopted some of the principles underpinning the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the “Model Law”) adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law.

Despite Taiwan’s not being a signatory of the New York Convention, such political status does not necessarily affect reciprocity when it comes to the enforcement of arbitral awards. In fact, Taiwanese courts tend to take a relatively liberal approach to determining the reciprocity requirement in the case of foreign arbitral award recognition. A Taiwanese High Court decision from 2005 states that the reciprocity prerequisite to recognising foreign arbitral awards, as stipulated by the Taiwan Arbitration Law, does not require a recognition made by the Taiwanese court only if the foreign arbitral seat recognises Taiwanese arbitral rewards; instead, such stipulation merely authorises the court to reject recognition at its sole discretion after contemplating the reciprocity factors.

Further, Taiwan has been devoted to aligning its arbitral laws and practices with important international treaties such as the New York Convention. Such efforts can be found in the Taiwan-Vietnam Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement, where it is prescribed that “one party shall recognise and enforce arbitral awards rendered in the territory of the other party in accordance with the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards concluded in New York on 10 June 1958 and the arbitration laws of the two parties.” As such, even though Taiwan is not a contracting party to the New York Convention, it could be observed that the Convention is de facto complied with in recognition and enforcement procedures and practices in Taiwan. 

There is no variation in approach to enforcement of arbitral awards in Taiwan. 

Domestic Arbitral Awards

Pursuant to Article 38 of the Taiwan Arbitration Law, the enforcement of domestic arbitral awards shall be refused if the court finds that one of the following circumstances applies:

• the arbitral award involves a dispute irrelevant to the subject matter of the arbitration agreement, or falls beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement (ie, matters outside the submission to arbitration), unless the offending portion can be severed from and not affect the remainder of the arbitral award;
• the reasoning for the arbitral award is absent despite the reasoning being stated as required by law, unless such omission was supplemented/corrected by the arbitral tribunal; or
• the arbitral award requests a party to act contrary to Taiwanese law.

Arbitral Awards from China

As described in 4.1 Legal Issues concerning Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, the court shall dismiss the application of confirmation/recognition of arbitral awards from China if such awards are contrary to public order and good morals in Taiwan or there is lack of reciprocity. 

Arbitral Awards from Other Jurisdictions

Pursuant to Article 50 of the Taiwan Arbitration Law, if a party applies to the court for recognition of a foreign arbitral award, the respondent may request the court to dismiss the application within 20 days from the date of receipt of the notice of the application, on any of the following grounds:

• the arbitration agreement is invalid as a result of the incapacity of a party pursuant to the law chosen by the parties to govern the arbitration agreement;
• the arbitration agreement is null and void pursuant to the chosen governing law of such arbitration agreement, or, in the absence of a choice of law, pursuant to the law of the country where the arbitral award was made;
• a party is not properly served with the notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or any other matter in the arbitral proceedings that shall be served, or there is any other factor which gives rise to lack of due process;
• the arbitral award involves a dispute irrelevant to the subject matter of the arbitration agreement, or falls beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement, unless the offending portion can be severed from and not affect the remainder of the arbitral award;
• the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitration proceedings contravenes the arbitration agreement between the parties, or, in the absence of an arbitration agreement, contravenes the law where the arbitration is seated;
• the arbitral award is not yet binding between the parties or has been suspended or revoked by a competent authority.

Arbitral Awards in Taiwan

In principle, the holder of a domestic award must obtain an enforcement order to initiate the compulsory enforcement procedures. For further details, see 4.1 Legal Issues concerning Enforcement of Arbitral Awards.

Arbitral Awards from China

Pursuant to Article 68 of the Enforcement Rules for the Act Governing Relations Between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area, before applying for recognition in a Taiwanese court, a Chinese arbitral award must be verified by an institution set up or designated by the Executive Yuan or a private organisation entrusted by the Executive Yuan. The Straits Exchange Foundation is the institute entrusted by the Mainland Affairs Council to handle the authentication of documents between China and Taiwan.

Arbitral Awards from Other Jurisdictions

Pursuant to Article 48 of the Taiwan Arbitration Law, an applicant must submit the following documents to the competent court for application of a recognition order:

• the original arbitral award or an authenticated copy thereof;
• the original arbitration agreement or an authenticated copy thereof; and
• the full text of the foreign arbitration laws and regulations, the rules of the foreign arbitration institute, or the rules of the international arbitration institute, that are applicable to the foreign arbitral award.

If the documents listed above are presented in any other foreign language, a Chinese translation of this must be submitted to the court. Meanwhile, the aforementioned “authenticated” documents refer to the documents authenticated by the embassies and missions, representative offices, liaison offices or any other institutions officially authorised by the government of Taiwan. 

Costs

Application for a confirmation/recognition/enforcement order

To apply for confirmation/recognition/enforcement of an arbitral award, one must pay the district court the non-litigation fee as described in 3.5 Costs and Time Taken to Enforce Foreign Judgments.

Enforcement of arbitral awards

The cost of enforcement of an arbitral award is 0.8% of the sum to be enforced.

Time

There are no official statistics in respect of the time taken to enforce arbitral awards. Based on the authors’ past experience, the procedures for application of a confirmation/recognition/enforcement order of arbitral awards usually take two to three months to complete.

A losing party of an arbitral award may file a lawsuit in a district court to revoke an arbitral award at the post-award stage. In the event that a losing party applies for revocation of an arbitral award, the court may grant an application by said party to suspend the enforcement of the arbitral award once the party has paid a suitable amount of security. 

Pursuant to Article 40 of the Taiwan Arbitration Law, an award may be revoked on the following grounds:

• any circumstances as stated in Article 38 of the same act (ie, the reasons for dismissing an enforcement order regarding domestic arbitral awards as described in 4.3 Categories of Arbitral Awards Not Enforced);
• the arbitration agreement is nullified, invalid or has yet to come into effect or has become invalid prior to the closure of the arbitral proceedings;
• the arbitral tribunal fails to give any of the parties an opportunity to present their case prior to the closure of the arbitral proceedings, or where any of the parties is not lawfully represented during the arbitral proceedings;
• the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral proceedings is contrary to the arbitration agreement or the law;
• an arbitrator fails to fulfil the duty of disclosure as prescribed in Article 15(2) of the Taiwan Arbitration Law and appears to be biased, or has been requested to withdraw but continues to participate in the proceedings, provided that the request for withdrawal has not been dismissed by the court;
• an arbitrator violates any duty in the entrusted arbitration and such violation is attributed to criminal conduct;
• a party or any representative has committed a criminal offence in relation to the arbitration;
• the arbitral award is based on any evidence or content of translation that has been forged or fraudulently altered or contains any other misrepresentations;
• the arbitral award is based on a criminal, civil, or other kind of judgment or administrative ruling that has been reversed or altered by a subsequent judgment or administrative ruling.