Weekly Case | Procedural objections should not be perfunctory; dispute resolution is the ultimate goal

Zhang Ranming, Lawyer, Deputy Director of the International Trade and Investment Department, Deputy Director of the Sports and Cultural Industry Department, Secretary of the Professional Risk Control and Liability Determination Committee, Secretary of the Sports Industry Professional Committee of Hangzhou Lawyers Association; Bachelor of International Sports English, Beijing Sport University; Master of Laws, Chongqing University; holds a lawyer's license, English Level 8 certificate, securities industry qualification certificate, and fund industry qualification certificate. Currently practices at Zhejiang Hangtianxin Law Firm, focusing on civil and commercial litigation and arbitration, foreign-related and non-litigious business. Adhering to the professional philosophy of "entrusted by others, loyal to others", he has handled numerous successful cases, securing maximum benefits for clients.

Contact Information: Mobile: 15968868906 Email: zhangranming@htxls.com

Procedural objections should not be 'perfunctory'; dispute resolution is the 'kingly way'.

【Case Summary】

Natural person A and overseas study intermediary company B signed a "Self-funded Overseas Study Intermediary Service Contract." The service content was for B to help A obtain an acceptance letter from a UK university. The contract stipulated a brokerage fee of 56,000 pounds, payable in installments: 30% upon signing the contract, and 70% upon receipt of the acceptance letter. A paid over 170,000 RMB in total after signing the contract, and B began the application process. Later, due to the pandemic, the program A applied for was canceled. After consultation, A and B agreed to reapply the following year. Shortly after, A was admitted to a domestic university and thus sought to terminate the contract with B, but negotiations failed. B sued A to Court C, demanding 74,488 yuan in liquidated damages.

【Agency Strategy】

A retained Lawyer Zhang Ranming, hoping to minimize losses and prioritize mediation without compromising their interests. After accepting the case, Lawyer Zhang first attempted mediation with the other party, but communication was unsuccessful. During communication, Lawyer Zhang discovered that B had an office address in Hangzhou's Gongshu District, while Court C was in B's registered location. The "Self-funded Overseas Study Intermediary Service Contract" stipulated that any disputes would be handled by the court in B's place of business. Thus, Court C (a city in Zhejiang Province, not Hangzhou) might not have jurisdiction, and the Hangzhou Gongshu District People's Court might. After reviewing the lawsuit materials, Lawyer Zhang did not immediately file a substantive defense. Instead, they gathered evidence at B's Hangzhou office and submitted a 23-page jurisdictional objection, requesting Court C to transfer the case to the Hangzhou Gongshu District People's Court. However, Court C rejected the objection. Lawyer Zhang appealed the rejection of the jurisdictional objection. During the appeal, they gathered additional evidence and submitted a 62-page appeal document. In communicating with the second-instance judge, Lawyer Zhang conveyed A's willingness to mediate. Although the judge was only handling the procedural objection, through Lawyer Zhang's efforts, the judge helped mediate between the parties.

【Case Outcome】

As the Intermediate People's Court was about to issue a second-instance ruling, the parties, through the efforts of all involved, reached a settlement agreement with the assistance of the second-instance judge: If A withdrew the appeal, B would return 100,000 RMB and withdraw the lawsuit in Court C. A withdrew the appeal, received 100,000 RMB, B withdrew its lawsuit, and the dispute was resolved.

【Case Analysis】

Jurisdictional objections are generally considered mere procedural matters, not involving substantive review; many lawyers only fulfill the procedural requirements without seeking practical solutions. In this case, although the second-instance judge was only handling a procedural matter, Lawyer Zhang did not simply fulfill the requirements. They gathered substantial evidence for the jurisdictional objection, while also maintaining good communication with the judge and expressing the client's willingness to mediate, which facilitated settlement. The case was successfully settled with the judge's help, securing maximum benefits for the client.

The professional articles or case analyses contained in this public account only represent the author's personal views and should not be considered legal opinions or advice issued by this firm, nor do they constitute an endorsement, guarantee, or recommendation by this firm of any organization or product mentioned in the articles. This firm does not guarantee that the content will be updated after the date stated in the article. This firm assumes no responsibility for any actions or inactions taken solely on the basis of all or part of the content of this article, and for any consequences arising therefrom.