In Taiwan, a judgment creditor must take sole responsibility for initiating civil enforcement by commencing compulsory enforcement procedures. There is no governmental authority accountable for initiating such proceedings. Creditors have various options available to identify a debtor’s assets both before and after adjudication.

Pre-adjudication Phase

Registered assets

Registered assets in Taiwan include real property, patents, vehicles, and trademarks. The owners of these assets can be identified as follows.

Real property

Title to land and buildings is recorded by the Department of Land Administration in each Taiwanese city or county (collectively, the “Land Register Authority”).  Title record information includes the name, ID number, and address of the owner. 

Although the Land Register Authority allows members of the public to obtain a transcript of registered information for a specific property (referred to as a “Type 2 transcript”), the Authority partially redacts the owner’s name, ID number, and address if the owner is a natural person. Consequently, it can be challenging to identify the full scope of the real property owned by a natural person debtor from Type 2 transcripts alone.

Furthermore, obtaining a Type 2 transcript requires the creditor to provide a specific land or building number to the Land Register Authority. This requirement effectively prevents a broad search for all real properties owned by the debtor using their name alone. It is thus impractical to conduct a fishing expedition to discover all of the debtor’s real properties.

Nonetheless, a creditor can obtain more useful information about a debtor’s real property by petitioning for a court order as discussed in the paragraphs below concerning property disclosure orders to third parties.

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 Taiwan Intellectual Property Office.

Trade marks

Trade mark information is publicly available. A creditor may search for all registered trademarks owned by a debtor by using the trade mark search system maintained by the Intellectual Property Office.

Provisional attachment order

A creditor with a monetary claim or a claim “exchangeable” for a monetary claim may seek a provisional attachment order against a debtor to prevent a debtor from transferring his/her assets. Examples of monetary claims are claims for payment of a negotiable instrument, repayment of loan, or rent. A claim exchangeable for a monetary claim means a claim that is originally for something other than money but that may evolve into a claim for money as a substitute. Many contract and tort claims evolve into claims for money when specific performance is not an available remedy and the court awards compensatory damages instead.

To obtain a provisional attachment order, a creditor must make a preliminary showing that there is a likelihood 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.  If the creditor fails to make the required prima facie showing that future enforcement is likely to be difficult, the court may exercise its discretion and request the creditor to provide security as an alternative. In general, such security is a sum equal to one-third of the value of underlying claims.

Foreign creditors can apply for attachment orders and should consult with Taiwan litigation counsel about when and how to seek an attachment order when filing overseas litigation against a Taiwan defendant if enforcement against assets in Taiwan is contemplated.

Property disclosure order to a third party

A provisional attachment order allows a creditor to initiate compulsory enforcement proceedings against a debtor on the grounds of the enforcement title granted by the provisional attachment order. In the course of these proceedings, the creditor may petition the court’s enforcement division to make inquiries with the relevant authorities, organisations, or persons who possess knowledge of the debtor’s assets (collectively, the “knowledgeable third parties”) under Article 19(2) of the Compulsory Enforcement Act. 

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

• Local tax office – a creditor may obtain a list of personal income and a list of properties (including real properties and vehicles) of the debtor from a local tax office. 
• Taiwan Depository & Clearing Corporation – a creditor may identify stock held by the 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 the 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. The procedure is the same as the one explained in the previous section.

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 the debtor to report his/her property, subject to certain conditions (the “property disclosure order to a debtor”). If the debtor fails to provide the report by the deadline set by the court, the court has the power to place the debtor into custody under 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 during 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).

Of the three types of final judgment, 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 attachment, 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 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, 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 (attachment) order to prohibit the debtor from collecting/disposing of such claim and to prohibit the third party from repaying the debtor. At its discretion, the court may 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 a 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 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 comply with 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 a 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 cannot be carried out by a third party instead. 

For non-property enforcement, the cost of enforcement proceedings is fixed at NTD3,000 (USD97). For property enforcement, where the amount or value of the subject of enforcement is less than NTD5,000 (USD162), 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 (USD3.25).

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 because 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 a list of assets owned by a debtor and hence subject to the compulsory enforcement proceeding. Therefore, the key point in compulsory enforcement is identifying the assets of a debtor. Measures to obtain such information may be 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 by any other matters.

Nonetheless, 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). Although merely initiating an objection suit will not automatically suspend the compulsory enforcement proceeding, the court may, upon petition by the debtor, issue a ruling to suspend the compulsory enforcement if necessitated by circumstances and/or after determining an adequate security.

As described in 2.1 Types of Domestic Judgments, declaratory judgments and formative judgments are not enforceable. In addition, an interlocutory ruling rendered during civil proceedings is not an enforceable title.

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 on 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.

To enforce a Vietnamese judgment in Taiwan, the creditor holding a judgment rendered by Vietnamese authorities/courts shall first file a lawsuit in Taiwan to obtain a recognition and enforcement decision; the creditor may then initiate 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 – the judgment is legally effective, binding and final, and also enforceable in accordance with Vietnamese law.
• Competent authority – the 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 – the 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 an effective decision rendered by a third jurisdiction in the same litigation; or the same case has not been brought to a Taiwanese court.
• Due process – the 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 the judgment rendered by Vietnamese authorities/courts shall not prejudice Taiwan’s national security, public policy or contradict fundamental principles of Taiwanese law.

Titles From China

Without a 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 the Cross-Strait Relations Act prescribes that, prior to the compulsory enforcement proceedings, a creditor must petition a Taiwanese court for recognition of the Chinese judgment. Requirements for recognition include that:

• the judgment is a final and irrevocable civil ruling or judgment;
• the judgment is not contrary to the public order or good morals of Taiwan; and
• a binding civil judgment made in Taiwan must be able to be recognised (through a recognition order), and be an enforceable title, in China (ie, reciprocity is required).

Titles From Other Jurisdictions

Foreign judgments from other jurisdictions are recognised in principle. However, before initiating compulsory enforcement proceedings on a foreign judgment, a creditor must file a lawsuit to the local court for permission to enforce the foreign judgment. The court will not review the merits of the foreign judgment; instead, it will 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 issued conflicting judgments as to whether a foreign judgment that awards punitive damages can be recognised and enforced in Taiwan. In general, the Taiwan Supreme Court is more likely to be willing to enforce foreign judgments that award punitive damages if the punitive damages do not exceed treble damages. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has rejected enforcement of punitive damages in cases where the foreign judgment involved commercial disputes related to investment and awarded what were deemed to be excessive punitive damages.

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 recognised in principle 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 if service was defective. This issue is much litigated and Taiwanese defendants are often able to use this rule to escape enforcement of foreign judgments against their assets in Taiwan. It is essential to consult with Taiwanese counsel on service of process in Taiwan if there is any possibility the foreign judgment will need to be enforced in Taiwan. The following recent cases illustrate just some of the pitfalls that can hinder foreign plaintiffs in their quest to enforce judgments in Taiwan.

In 2020, a Taiwan High Court held that service of court proceedings by publication in China is defective service. Also, in 2021, a Taiwan High Court held that service of foreign process on a Taiwanese defendant in Taiwan may not be effected by mail, direct ex officio delivery by the foreign court, or personal service by the plaintiff’s Taiwan lawyer. The High Court’s reasoning was that a foreign court should follow Taiwan’s “Procedures for Handling Judicial Assistance Events” and other mutual judicial assistance agreements to serve foreign process on a defendant in Taiwan since service of process is a manifestation of a country’s judicial sovereignty and its procedures are subject to the principle of lex fori. As a general matter, Taiwan’s courts serve process of defendants themselves without party involvement and Taiwan does not recognise service of process by other agencies or service by parties. Thus the party service by mail in this case was defective since service by mail is not recognised as effective service under Taiwanese procedural law.

Public Order and Good Morals in Taiwan

Where the foreign judgment is incompatible with “public order and good morals” (public policy) in Taiwan, the Taiwanese court shall not render a judgment to enforce the foreign judgment. 

Reciprocity

If the courts of a foreign jurisdiction will not recognise Taiwan court judgments, Taiwan will not enforce judgments issuing from the courts of that jurisdiction.

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 recognition of foreign judgments. In a 2013 judgment, the Taiwan Supreme Court held that Taiwanese courts should take the initiative to recognise judgments from a given foreign jurisdiction so long as the foreign jurisdiction does not expressly refuse to recognise the validity of the judgment made by the Taiwanese court. In other words, the Supreme Court has directed the lower courts to take a liberal view of reciprocity. Moreover, in a 2021 judgment, the Taiwan Supreme Court further clarified that mutual recognition in this context does not refer to mutual state recognition by Taiwan and another state under international law, but rather refers to reciprocity in mutual recognition of judgments between courts. If the foreign jurisdiction’s laws or courts do not expressly refuse to recognise the validity of Taiwanese judgments, Taiwan Courts should be as lenient as possible and take the initiative to recognise the validity of the other jurisdiction’s judgment based on the principle of reciprocity.

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. It is understood 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 judgment, 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 the 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 (USD16) to NTD5,000 (USD162), depending on the amount of the claim(s). If the losing party decides to appeal or re-appeal, a fee of NTD1,000 (USD32) will be additionally charged by each appellate 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.

In general, Taiwan follows the American rule for lawyer fees. Each party pays for the legal fees that it incurs and cannot recover such fees from the other party except for a small portion at the Supreme Court.

Time

There are no official statistics in respect of the time taken to enforce a foreign judgment. The proceedings for enforcement/recognition of a foreign judgment usually take 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 not protected due to a 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 commencement of the foreign court proceedings were legally served on the debtor. 

A Supreme Court judgment made in 2011 further elaborates that 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 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 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 (public policy) in Taiwan; and
• arbitral awards made in Taiwan are eligible for a recognition order or considered enforceable titles in China (ie, reciprocity 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 if foreign laws apply. This point was illustrated by a 2022 Supreme Court judgment. The Supreme Court in that case took the view 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 first. 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 (public policy) in Taiwan. Although Taiwan is not a contracting 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 resolved by arbitration 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 Taiwanese arbitral awards. 

The de facto application of the New York Convention

Owing to its contested political status, Taiwan is currently not a contracting 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, its exclusion from the New York Convention 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 committed 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, despite Taiwan not being a contracting party to the New York Convention, it may be observed that in general the Convention is de facto applied 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 arbitral award does not set forth the reasoning for the award where the reasoning is required by law, unless such omission is supplemented/corrected by the arbitral tribunal; or
• the arbitral award orders 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 a petition for confirmation/recognition of an arbitral award from China if such award is contrary to public order and good morals in Taiwan or there is a 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 that 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; or
• 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 authenticated (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 jurisdiction’s arbitration laws and regulations, the rules of the foreign arbitration institute, or the rules of the international arbitration institute that apply to the foreign arbitral award.

If the documents listed above are presented in any other foreign language, corresponding Chinese translations must be submitted to the court. Additionally, the term “authenticated” above means authentication of the copies 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. It usually takes two to three months to get a decision on a petition for an order to confirm/recognise/enforce an arbitral award.

Post-award, a losing party may file an action in a district court to set aside an arbitral award. In the event that a losing party seeks to set aside an arbitral award, the court may grant a petition by that party to suspend the enforcement of the arbitral award once the party has provided adequate security. 

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

• any circumstances stated in Article 38 of the same act (ie, the reasons for denying a petition for an order to enforce a domestic arbitral award 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 disclose the matters prescribed by Article 15(2) of the Taiwan Arbitration Law (recusal and conflict of interest), or other matters that could cause a party to believe that there is a likelihood that the arbitrator cannot exercise independent judgment or is biased, or has been requested to withdraw but continues to participate in the proceedings, provided that the request for withdrawal has not been denied by the court;
• an arbitrator violates any duty in the 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 translation that has been forged or fraudulently altered or contains any other misrepresentations; or
• the arbitral award is based on a criminal, civil, or other kind of judgment or administrative ruling that has been reversed or modified by a subsequent judgment or administrative ruling.