The “Guiding Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on Promoting Quality Improvement, Efficiency Enhancement and Substantive Resolution of Contradictions and Disputes in Trial” has been issued on December 30, 2024

In judicial practice, various problems such as difficulty in filing cases, unresolved cases, and arbitrary termination of enforcement have been criticized. On December 30, 2024, the Supreme People’s Court issued the “Guiding Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on Promoting Quality Improvement, Efficiency Enhancement and Substantive Resolution of Contradictions and Disputes in Trial” (hereinafter referred to as the “Guiding Opinions”). There are 17 provisions in total. The following highlights are worth paying attention to by enterprises.

1. Measures to improve the difficulty of filing cases

The Guiding Opinions emphasize that in accordance with the requirements of the registration system for filing cases, “Every case must be filed and every lawsuit must be handled”. In addition, it is clearly stipulated that for 7 circumstances, the court shall provide patient guidance, and corrections should be made in one go. It is not advisable to directly rule that the case should not be accepted, filed, or dismissed. These 7 circumstances mainly refer to the existence of non-substantive issues, including: ① The litigation agent has not submitted the power of attorney and related supporting materials; ② When a legal person or other organization files a lawsuit, the lawsuit materials lack the unit seal or the signature of the legal representative or main person in charge; ③ The content of the complaint is insufficient or contains other errors; ④ The defendant clearly states but cannot provide an accurate delivery address; ⑤ The cause of action claimed in the lawsuit is clearly incorrect; ⑥ Failure to clearly express the lawsuit request; and ⑦ The sued court has no jurisdiction.

2. Prohibition of “artificially splitting cases”

The “Civil Procedure Law” and its judicial interpretations have made clear provisions for joint litigation. However, there is flexibility in determining whether the joint litigation system could be applicated to individual cases in judicial practice. In order to avoid splitting the case after entering the substantive trial process, some courts request the plaintiff to split the case at the time of filing. The Guiding Opinions reiterate the legal basis of joint litigation and emphasize that: “If it should be tried together according to law, it must be tried together; if it can be tried together according to law, it should generally be tried together unless the parties raise reasonable objections. If the plaintiff files separate lawsuits against two or more related administrative actions taken by the same administrative authority or different administrative authorities at the same time, the court shall determine whether they meet the statutory conditions for filing a lawsuit; if they meet the statutory conditions for filing a lawsuit and the joint trial is conducive to substantive resolution of disputes, they can be tried together according to law.”

3. It is prohibited to use the excuse of “Jurisdiction” to evade cases.

The Guiding Opinions stipulate that “Courts shall not illegally rule to transfer jurisdiction over cases under their jurisdiction. If a plaintiff adds a defendant to evade jurisdiction, the court shall require the plaintiff to submit evidence to prove that the defendant has an interest in the disputed matter when determining whether it has jurisdiction. If there is no interest and there are no other statutory matters that determine jurisdiction, the court shall rule to transfer the case to a court with jurisdiction.

4. Regarding contract dispute cases, the handling rules for “Alternative litigation requests” have been clarified.

In China, relevant laws have not specified how to handle the circumstance whether the plaintiff could file other alternative claims in addition to its original claims. In judicial practice, there are different practices. In order to promote the one-time resolution of contradictions and disputes, and avoid parties from being trapped in repeated litigation procedures, the Guiding Opinions clarify that when a court accepts and hears contract disputes, it can make the following explanations to the plaintiff based on the situation of the lawsuit and defense: (1) If a plaintiff claims to terminate the contract, the court could inform the plaintiff that if its claims could not be supported or the relevant contract is invalid, the plaintiff could request continued performance of the contract or claim liability for breach of contract; (2) If a plaintiff claims to continue performing the contract, the court could inform the plaintiff that if its claims could not be supported or the relevant contract is invalid, the plaintiff could claim liability for breach of contract or terminate the contract; and (3) If a plaintiff claims that a contract is invalid, the court could inform the plaintiff that if the contract is valid or cannot be performed, the plaintiff could request continued performance of the contract or terminate the contract.

According to the above rules, if a court makes a ruling in favor of original claims, it does not have to review alternative claims; on the contrary, if a court has ruled in favor of the defendant regarding the original claims, it shall hear regarding the alternative lawsuit claims.

5. Prohibiting the arbitrary termination of enforcement for the sake of closure rate.

Article 16 of the Guiding Opinions clearly stipulates the prerequisite for terminating the current enforcement procedure. There are 5 necessary implementation steps before making the rule of termination of enforcement. The 5 steps are: (1) Issuing enforcement  notices and consumption restriction orders to the executed persons, and including eligible executed persons in the list of dishonest executed persons; (2) Thoroughly and comprehensively investigate the property of the executed person, conduct necessary on-site investigations and search measures, and lawfully search for the whereabouts of the executed person and other necessary investigation measures; (3) Dispose of the property of the executed person discovered, except for those that cannot be disposed of; (4) Take compulsory measures such as fines or detention against the executed person or other persons who obstruct the enforcement , or initiate criminal liability proceedings against the executed person who constitutes a crime in accordance with the law; and (5) Interview and seek opinions from the applicant for enforcement regarding the enforcement claims, except for enforcement involving litigation costs and criminal property penalties.