In Taiwan, a judgment creditor bears sole responsibility for initiating civil enforcement by commencing compulsory enforcement proceedings. No governmental authority is responsible for initiating such proceedings. Creditors have various options for identifying 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. Ownership 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 owner’s name, ID number and address.

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 the Land Register Authority with a specific land or building number. This requirement effectively prevents a broad search for all real property owned by the debtor by name alone. It is therefore impractical to conduct a fishing expedition to discover all of the debtor’s real property.

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 trade marks owned by a debtor by using the trade mark search system maintained by the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office.

Provisional attachment order

A creditor with a monetary claim, or a claim convertible into a monetary claim, may seek a provisional attachment order against a debtor to prevent the debtor from transferring assets. Examples of monetary claims include claims for payment under a negotiable instrument, repayment of a loan or payment of rent. A claim convertible into a monetary claim is a claim that initially seeks relief other than money but may later be satisfied by a monetary substitute. Many contract and tort claims become monetary claims when specific performance is unavailable and the court instead awards damages.

To obtain a provisional attachment order, a creditor must make a preliminary showing that there is a likelihood that satisfying the claim through compulsory enforcement after a final and binding judgment will be impossible or extremely difficult. If the creditor fails to make the required prima facie showing that future enforcement is likely to be difficult, the court may, in its discretion, require the creditor to provide security instead. In general, such security is an amount equal to one third of the value of the underlying claim.

Foreign creditors may apply for attachment orders and should consult Taiwanese litigation counsel regarding when and how to seek such an order when commencing overseas litigation against a Taiwanese 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 basis of the enforcement title created by that order. In the course of those 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 requiring knowledgeable third parties, such as the following, to report assets owned by the debtor (a “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, subject to certain conditions, issue a property disclosure order to a debtor requiring the debtor to report his or her assets (the “property disclosure order to a debtor”). If the debtor fails to provide the report by the deadline set by the court, the court may place the debtor into custody under Article 20(3) of the Compulsory Enforcement Act. In practice, however, courts rarely issue property disclosure orders to debtors, and detention is even rarer.

Article 4(1) of the Compulsory Enforcement Act provides for several types of enforceable title, 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 these three types of final judgment, only a judgment of performance is enforceable. Declaratory and formative judgments are not enforceable because their declaratory or formative effect takes effect automatically once the judgment becomes 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;
• a payment order; and
• juvenile court fines, prosecutors’ execution orders, and town, city, and district office mediation orders.

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 property; and (ii) claims to perform or refrain from performing an act.

With respect to claims for the delivery of property, if the asset to be enforced is movable property and the debtor fails to comply with the court order requiring delivery, the court may seize the property and deliver it directly to the creditor.

If the relevant property is immovable property that must be delivered pursuant to a court order and the debtor fails to comply, the court may remove the property from the debtor’s possession and place the creditor in possession. 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 the property from the debtor.

Where the enforceable title relates to claims to perform or refrain from performing an act, the court may impose a default surcharge (ie, a monetary penalty for non-compliance) on the debtor or even place the debtor into custody if the obligation cannot be performed by a third party instead.

For non-property enforcement, the cost of enforcement proceedings is fixed at TWD3,000 (USD101). For property enforcement, where the amount or value of the subject of enforcement is less than TWD5,000 (USD169), no enforcement costs will be charged by the court; where the enforcement amount or value is above TWD5,000, the enforcement costs charged by the court are 70 cents for every TWD100 (USD0.024).

In principle, a compulsory enforcement proceeding should be concluded within two years, as required by internal judicial regulations. Among the various enforcement forms, enforcement by a court order against a debtor’s receivables owed by a third party is relatively efficient 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 those assets are located. A creditor must present to the court a list of the debtor’s assets that are subject to compulsory enforcement. Accordingly, the key issue in compulsory enforcement is identifying the debtor’s assets. Measures for obtaining such information are discussed 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, a debtor may bring an objection action against the creditor if, after the enforceable title has been created, an event occurs that extinguishes or prevents the creditor’s claim (eg, where the debtor repays the debt after a final and binding judgment has been rendered). Although merely commencing an objection action will not automatically suspend ongoing compulsory enforcement proceedings, the court may, upon the debtor’s application, order a stay of enforcement if circumstances so require and/or upon the provision of adequate security.

As described in 2.1 Types of Domestic Judgments, declaratory 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, subject to certain exceptions (discussed below), most court judgments are published on the Law and Regulations Retrieving System maintained by the Judicial Yuan. This official online system is publicly accessible without login requirements and 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.

Recognition of Foreign Judgments

Foreign judgments from other jurisdictions are, in principle, recognisable. However, before initiating compulsory enforcement proceedings on the basis of a foreign judgment, a creditor must bring an action before the local court for permission to enforce that judgment. The court will not review the merits of the foreign judgment; instead, it will assess whether any of the grounds for non-recognition set out in Article 402(1) of the Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure applies (see 3.3 Categories of Foreign Judgments Not Enforced).

Vietnamese Judgments

In addition to Article 402(1) of the Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure, 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. This Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement shows both countries’ enforce judgments from the other country on a reciprocal basis. 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.

Nevertheless, Article 402(1) of the Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure is still applicable; the circumstances enumerated in Article 402(1) of the Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure should not be present in order to enforce the judgment.

Chinese Judgments

Chinese judgments are not foreign judgments. Article 402(1) of the Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure does not apply directly (however, the resolution of the 2000 Legal Symposium of the Taiwan High Court and its Subordinate Courts held that the law should be applied by analogy). 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).

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.

Vietnamese and Chinese Judgments

For judgments 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.

Judgments From Other Jurisdictions

Regarding judgments 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 is enforceable only after a Taiwanese court has approved its enforcement by judgment. In principle, a Taiwanese court will approve enforcement of a final and irrevocable foreign judgment unless one of the circumstances enumerated in Article 402(1) of the Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure is present.

Jurisdiction

The foreign court that rendered the judgment must have had jurisdiction over the matter under 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 on 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.

A subsequent Taiwan High Court judgment in 2025 reaffirmed this approach, holding that service of commencement documents by a foreign court on a defendant in Taiwan must be conducted through Taiwan’s prescribed judicial assistance mechanisms. A 2026 Taiwan High Court judgment further emphasised that the purpose of these requirements is to safeguard the defendant’s substantive procedural rights in foreign proceedings. A defendant whose domicile, residence, office, or place of business is located within Taiwan may not have sufficient knowledge of documents issued by foreign judicial authorities, making it difficult to discern whether such documents are indeed genuinely presented by a foreign judicial authority.

At this juncture, serving judicial documents with the assistance of Taiwan’s diplomatic or judicial authorities will eliminate the costs incurred by parties in screening and verifying these documents independently. This is the primary legislative purpose behind the Law on Cooperation with Requests from Foreign Courts and the handling procedures for mutual legal assistance cases. Therefore, foreign judicial authorities should naturally serve judicial documents through these channels in order to safeguard the substantive right of defence for defendants within Taiwan. The determination of whether a defendant has “appeared” must be based on whether the right of substantive defence has been sufficiently protected.

As a principle, where service of process is effected in a foreign jurisdiction, it should be made directly on the party or its legal representative. Service on the party’s litigation representative is also permissible. However, where substituted or alternative service methods are used under the law of the foreign state, the court must conduct a detailed assessment of whether the defendant’s right of defence has been sufficiently protected, and whether the defendant has been afforded adequate time and opportunity to prepare an effective defence.

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.

In 2026, the Taiwan Supreme Court held that the assessment of whether a foreign judgment contravenes public order or good morals is limited to examining the dispositive conclusions reached by the foreign court in its findings of fact and application of law in the specific case. It does not concern the legislative policy of the foreign jurisdiction, nor does it entail a re-examination of the correctness of the foreign court’s factual determinations or legal application.

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.

Vietnamese and Chinese Judgments

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.

Judgments From Other Jurisdictions

As noted above, to enforce a foreign judgment, the creditor must first bring an action before the district court for permission to enforce. Pursuant to Article 4-1(2) of the Compulsory Enforcement Act, the competent court to approve enforcement of a foreign judgment shall be the court in the place of the debtor’s domicile. If the debtor has no domicile within Taiwan, the creditor may bring the action before the court where the asset to be enforced is located or where the enforcement measure is to be carried out.

Appeal and Re-Appeal

If the court finds that the requirements set out in 3.1 Legal Issues Concerning Enforcement of Foreign Judgments are satisfied (for titles rendered in Vietnam and China), or that none of the non-recognition grounds described in 3.3 Categories of Foreign Judgments Not Enforced are present (for titles rendered in other jurisdictions), it will render judgment in favour of the creditor recognising and/or permitting enforcement of the foreign title.

However, the losing party in an action for recognition of, or permission to enforce, a foreign judgment may appeal, and the losing party on appeal may further appeal to the court of final instance. The creditor cannot initiate compulsory enforcement proceedings until the judgment recognising and/or permitting enforcement has become final and binding.

Costs

Judgments 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 TWD500 (USD17) to TWD5,000 (USD170), depending on the amount of the claim(s). If the losing party decides to appeal or re-appeal, a fee of TWD1,000 (USD34) will be additionally charged by each appellate court.

Judgments 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 on the time required to enforce a foreign judgment. Proceedings for recognition and/or enforcement of a foreign judgment usually take about two to three months if the respondent does not contest the application.

Common Arguments

Because recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment (whether rendered by a Vietnamese court, a Chinese court or a court of another foreign jurisdiction) requires observance of due process, common arguments raised by a debtor (ie, the losing defendant in the proceedings that produced the foreign judgment) include the following:

• 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 holding that the plaintiff bears the burden of proving either 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 2011 Supreme Court judgment further explains that, where a foreign court serves a defendant located in Taiwan with a notice or order commencing 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 Taiwanese laws and regulations. The notice or order must also allow the defendant sufficient time to prepare a defence. Accordingly, if the plaintiff’s lawyers simply send legal documents to the debtor by mail, or hand them directly to the debtor, such service may fail to 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, a party must first obtain an enforcement order from the competent court, unless the parties have agreed in writing that the award may be enforced without such an order and the subject matter of the 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 this definition, an arbitral award seated in Taiwan is not necessarily a domestic arbitral award if foreign law applies. This point was illustrated by a 2022 Supreme Court judgment, in which the court took the view that an arbitral award made in accordance with the ICC Arbitration Rules within Taiwan is deemed a foreign arbitral 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 apply.

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

A Taiwanese court will refuse to recognise a foreign arbitral award if the country in which the award was made, or whose laws govern the 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.

Although Taiwan is not a signatory to the New York Convention, that fact does not necessarily affect reciprocity in the enforcement of arbitral awards. Taiwanese courts in fact tend to adopt a relatively liberal approach to the reciprocity requirement in applications for recognition of foreign arbitral awards. A 2005 Taiwanese High Court decision states that the reciprocity requirement under the Taiwan Arbitration Law does not mean that a Taiwanese court may recognise a foreign arbitral award only if the foreign seat recognises Taiwanese arbitral awards. Rather, the provision authorises the court to deny recognition in its discretion after considering reciprocity-related factors.

Taiwan has also sought to align its arbitral laws and practices with important international instruments such as the New York Convention. For example, the Taiwan-Vietnam Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement provides 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.” Accordingly, although Taiwan is not a contracting party to the New York Convention, the Convention may generally be said to be applied de facto in recognition and enforcement practice 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.

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 in support of an application for 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.

After an award is rendered, the losing party may bring an action in the district court to set aside the arbitral award. If the losing party seeks to set aside the award, the court may, upon that party’s application and the provision of adequate security, stay enforcement of the arbitral award.

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.