民事判决书范本中英文对照

举证通知书(English V ersion)-法律英语翻译-法律文书翻译The People’s Republic of ChinaHefei Intermediate People’s Court of Anhui ProvinceNotice to Produce EvidenceNo. XXXTo: AAAAccording to the Civil Procedural Law of the People’s Republic of China and the Severa l Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidences for Civil Actions, you are responsible for producing evidences to prove the facts on which your claims are based or the facts on which the claims of the other party are rebutted.1. Y ou shall, as required by the Instructions for Producing Evidences of this Court submit evidence materials to this Court within thirty (30) days after the day of the receiving this notice.2. Evidences submitted by the parties to the people’s court shall be the origina ls, or copies or replicas checked and found in conformity with the originals by the people’s court. The submitted evidence materials shall be classified and numbered one by one. It is required to briefly describe the sources, facts to be proved and contents of the evidence materials. Copies shall be provided according to the number of the parties of the opposing side.3. Where it is really difficult for you to submit evidence materials within the evidence producing term, you may apply with this Court for extension before its expiration.4. Y our failure to submit evidence materials within the evidence producing term shall be deemed as waiver of the right to produce evidences. For the evidence materials not submitted on time, the people’s court won’t arra nge cross examination during trial, unless the other party agrees to cross examination.5. Where you intend to apply for authentication, increase or variation of the claims or file a counterclaim, you shall do the same prior to the expiration of the evidence producing term.6. Where you apply for appearance of a witness to testify, you shall file an application with this Court ten (10) days before expiration of the evidence producing term.7. Where an evidence provided by you has come into being outsi de the territory of the People’s Republic of China, such evidence shall be certified by a notarial authority of the country in which such evidence has come into being and certified by an embassy or consulate of the People’s Republic of China in that country, or it is required to perform the certifying procedures prescribed by related treaties between the People’s Republic of China and that country.Where an evidence provided by you has come into being in the region of Hong Kong, Macau or Taiwan, related certifying procedures shall be performed.Hefei Intermediate People’s Court of Anhui Province (seal)Date:举证通知书(中文版)×××人民法院举证通知书（××××）×××字第××号×××：根据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》和最高人民法院《关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》，现将有关举证事项通知如下：一、当事人应当对自己提出的诉讼请求所依据的事实或者反驳对方诉讼请求所依?据的事实承担举证责任。

民事判决书范本中英文对照篇一：民事判决书经典范文省市区人民法院民事判决书(1993）民初字第18号原告：金，女，1970年4月2日出生，汉族，农民，住市区镇村。

委托代理人：杜，律师事务所律师。

被告：王，男，1969年7月19日出生，汉族，农民，住市区镇村。

委托代理人：张，律师事务所律师。

原告金诉被告王解除非法同居关系纠纷一案，本院受理后，依法组成合议庭，公开开庭进行了审理。

原告金及其委托代理人杜、被告王及其委托代理人张到庭参加诉讼。

本案现已审理终结。

原告金诉称，要解除与被告王的非法同居关系，并分割共同财产。

被告王辩称，原告与被告的非法同居关系已经解除，财产也已经分割完毕，原告起诉无理。

经审理查明，1987年3月，原告、被告双方经人介绍相识后，即非法同居。

同居后双方到市里做买卖蔬菜的生意。

1988年12月底，原、被告回到村在原告家中居住。

1991年3月到被告家中居住，与被告父母分居生活。

在此期间，原、被告于1989年3月买潍坊产12马力拖拉机一部搞运输。

外欠原、被告运输费800元，后双方将拖拉机卖给关，卖价5000元，关除付部分款外，尚欠原、被告1700元。

1991年春，原、被告建北屋8间，厕所、厨房、大门各一间，原、被告投资4000元。

建房后，原、被告因家务琐事发生矛盾，原告回到娘家居住。

后经协商，被告给原告自行车一辆，现金2500元，原告收下后，鉴于同居后的共同财产分割不均，故诉至本院。

原、被告双方同居前无任何财产。

同居后共同购置了250型摩托车一辆，方桌一张，椅子两把，石英钟一个，双人床一张，凳子两个，黑白电视机一台，单桦犁一个，被子两床。

本院认为，原、被告未达法定婚龄即同居，其行为是违法的，非法同居关系应予解除。

原告要求分割财产的诉讼请求应予支持。

原、被告所建房屋，部分费用属被告的父母投资，被告应适当多得。

原、被告投资的4000元视为共同财产。

根据有关民事法律政策的规定，判决如下：一、解除原告金与被告王的非法同居关系。

Civil Procedure LawChapter I General ProvisionsArticle 1 This Law is formulated in accordance with the Constitution with a view to safeguarding the lawful rights and interests of citizens, legal persons and other organizations, and maintaining social and economic order, promoting the development of socialist democracy and building a socialist country under the rule of law.Article 2 For the purposes of this Law, a civil lawsuit includes all litigation activities conducted in accordance with the law to resolve disputes over civil rights and interests.Article 3 A civil lawsuit shall be guided by the principles of fairness, voluntariness, protection of rights, immediacy, effectiveness, and integrity.Article 4 People’s courts shall independently exercise their judicial power in accordance with the law, and no organization or individual may interfere with a court in its exercise of such power.Chapter II JurisdictionArticle 5 People’s courts at various levels shall have jurisdiction over civil cases according to the jurisdictional rules provided for by law.Article 6 The jurisdiction over a civil case shall be determined in accordance with the place where the defendant is domiciled or the place where the contract is performed, or where the property is located, based on the nature of the case and the relevant provisions of laws and regulations.Article 7 People’s courts shall have jurisdiction over civil cases involving foreign elements in accordance with the provisions of laws and relevant international treaties concluded or acceded to by the People’s Republi c of China.Chapter III Parties and Their RepresentativesArticle 8 In a civil lawsuit, the parties shall exercise their litigation rights and perform their litigation obligations independently.Article 9 The parties to a civil lawsuit shall have the right to engage lawyers to act as their representatives, and may also appoint close relatives or other persons as their representatives.Article 10 When a person becomes a party to a civil lawsuit, he/she shall have the right to know the facts of the case, present evidence, debate, apply for withdrawal, appeal or proceed with execution, and enjoy other litigation rights.Chapter IV EvidenceArticle 11 The burden of proof in a civil lawsuit shall be borne by the party that raises the claims. When the party claims for legal rights or interests, it shall provide evidence to support the claims.Article 12 The parties shall present evidence that they possess and are responsible for. The court shall inform the parties to present evidence they possess, as well as investigate and collect evidence necessary for the case.Article 13 The court shall examine the admissibility, authenticity, relevance, and legality of the evidence presented by the parties. The parties shall have the right to express their opinions on the evidence and provide explanations or cross-examination.Chapter V Mediation and WithdrawalArticle 14 In order to promote the amicable settlement of civil disputes, people’s courts shall actively encourage mediation between the parties. The parties may apply for mediation at any time during the trial process.Article 15 When the parties reach a mediation agreement, the people’s court shall render a mediation statement, which shall have the same effect as a legally effective judgment.Article 16 The parties may apply for withdrawal of a lawsuit before the conclusion of the trial. If the withdrawal is agreed upon by the other party and the people’s court finds it lawful, it shall allow the withdrawal.Chapter VI Judgment and RulingArticle 17 The people’s court sha ll render a judgment based on the facts ascertained from the evidence and the application of laws.Article 18 The people’s court shall make a determination on the facts and the application of laws separately and clearly in its judgment.Article 19 The peop le’s court shall render a judgment in a public hearing, except for cases involving state secrets or personal privacy of the parties.Chapter VII EnforcementArticle 20 During the trial or after a judgment is rendered, the parties may apply to the people’s court for enforcement if the other party refuses to fulfil its obligations as stipulated in the judgment.Article 21 The people’s court shall promptly execute the judgment once it becomes enforceable. If the party against whom enforcement is sought refuses to comply, the court shall take enforcement measures in accordance with the law.Chapter VIII Supplementary ProvisionsArticle 22 This Law shall come into effect on the date of its promulgation. At the same time, the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, which was adopted on April 9, 1991, is repealed.。

中华人民共和国吉林省高级人民法院民事判决书（2003）吉民三终字第20号上诉人（原审被告）：诸暨市飞达实业有限公司（原浙江省诸暨市飞达实业公司）。

住所：浙江省诸暨市城关镇浣东北路60号。

法定代表人：宗光培，该公司总经理。

委托代理人：田大原，吉林衡丰律师事务所律师。

被上诉人（原审原告）：珲春江南实业有限公司清算小组。

住所：珲春市。

代表人：金龙华，该清算小组组长。

被上诉人（原审原告）：韩国KOMARA农产会社。

住所：韩国釜山广城市莲提区莲山千洞586－15.法定代表人：姜大建，该社社长。

委托代理人：王文君，吉林由正律师事务所律师。

上诉人诸暨市飞达实业有限公司（以下简称飞达公司）与被上诉人珲春江南实业有限公司清算小组（以下简称清算组）、韩国KOMARA农产会社（以下简称农产会社）购销手套机合同纠纷一案，不服中华人民共和国吉林省延边朝鲜族自治州中级人民法院（2000）延州经初字第63号民事判决，向本院提起上诉。

本院受理后，依法组成合议庭，公开开庭进行了审理。

上诉人飞达公司委托代理人田大原，被上诉人清算组代表人金龙华，农产会社委托代理人王文君到庭参加诉讼。

本案现已审理终结。

原审法院查明：（一）1999年7月5日，珲春江南实业有限公司（以下简称江南公司）因未参加年检被珲春市工商行政管理局吊销营业执照，并被告知企业的债权债务由企业自行处理。

珲春市边境经济合作区经济发展局于2001年6月1日下发珲经发（2001）53号文件，决定江南公司成立清算小组。

珲春市公安局治安科出具证明：证明清算组的公章已依法备案。

江南公司原法定代表人姜南春于2000年6月8日出具书面说明：1、江南公司由其提议并同意成立清算小组，其委托宋明男为清算小组组长，金龙华任副组长，吕相基、李顺子、金昌浩为成员；2、其同意由金龙华负责清算工作及一切法律实施事宜。

因此，清算组成立的程序合法，应负责江南公司的债权债务清理工作，具有作为诉讼原告的主体资格。

中正法律英语翻译网收集和整理：Case No:CH/2004/APP/0271 Neutral Citation Number:[2004]EWHC2248(Ch)IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICECHANCERY DIVISIONDate:Friday,8th October2004 Before:THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE PARK---------------------Between:Usetech Limited Appellant-and-Graeme Young(HM Inspector of Taxes)------------------------------------------Simon Devonshire(instructed by Nelsons)for the AppellantAkash Nawbatt(instructed by the Solicitor of Inland Revenue)for the Respondent---------------------Approved JudgmentI direct that pursuant to CPR PD39A para6.1no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and thatcopies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic..............................Mr Justice ParkMr Justice Park:Abbreviations,dramatis personae,etc1.These are as follows.ABB ABB Vetco Gray(UK)Limited,the‘end user’of the services of MrHood;a company which provided a range of equipment to the oil andgas industry.Mr Devonshire Simon Devonshire,counsel for Usetech.EAT Employment Appeal Tribunal.Hood,Mr William Hood,specialist in a software system used by ABB,calledPro-Engineer;shareholder in and director of Usetech.IR35The reference number of an Inland Revenue Press Release of2000,which led to the enactment of the legislative provisions which are inpoint in this case.Nawbatt,Mr Akash Nawbatt,counsel for the Inspector of Taxes,the respondent tothis appeal.NES NES International Limited,a company described as an agencycompany which provided technical recruitment services.NICs National Insurance ContributionsUsetech Usetech Limited,the appellant on this appeal;‘one man company’owned by Mr Hood,which provided his services to end users.Overview2.3.This is a tax and NICs appeal by the taxpayer,Usetech,against a decision of a Special Commissioner,Mr Colin Bishopp,dated12March2004.The decision determined a question of principle concerning the liability to tax and NICs of Usetech and its principal shareholder and director,Mr etech was a ‘one man company’whose business consisted of making the services of Mr Hood available to third party users.By transactions entered into in May2000Mr Hood’s services were made available to ABB,and he worked in the business of ABB for about17months from1June2000.The transactions involved not only Mr Hood,Usetech and ABB,but also,in a manner which I will describe later,another company, NES.Mr Hood had no beneficial interest in NES.The question of principle is whether the transactions attracted the operation of provisions introduced,both for tax and for NICs,in2000and commonlyreferred to as the IR35legislation.IR35was the reference number of an Inland Revenue Press Release which had foreshadowed the legislation.4.If the IR35legislation applied its effect would be to treat payments received by Usetech for the provisionby it of Mr Hood’s services(the payments being received,not from ABB directly,but from NES)as if they had been personal income of Mr Hood from an employment with ABB.For income tax they would be treated as emoluments taxable under Schedule E,rather than as receipts of Usetech’s trade which would be taken into account in computing its profits liable to corporation tax.For NICs they would be treated in a similar way as employment income of Mr Hood.The liabilities both to income tax and to NICs would fall to be met by Usetech,not by Mr Hood.Thus it is Usetech which is the appellant taxpayer.5.The Inland Revenue issued formal decisions that the IR35provisions applied,and Usetech appealed tothe Special Commissioners.In form there were two decisions and two appeals,one for tax and one for NICs,but they turned on two sets of almost identical legislation and stood or fell together.The appeals were heard by Mr Bishopp on22January2004,and by a reserved decision dated12March2004he dismissed the appeals,thus affirming the decisions which the Inland Revenue had etech now appeals to me.It is clear that an appeal can only succeed if the decision was wrong in law.There is no appeal on a question of fact:see s.56A(1)and(4)of the Taxes Management Act1970.6.Mr Devonshire,who appears for Usetech,has helpfully limited his submissions to two specific respectsin which he says that the Special Commissioner erred in law.I will describe them fully later in this judgment.The first respect involves an argument that the IR35legislation cannot apply because of a contractual provision between Usetech and NES(not between Usetech and ABB or between NES and ABB),which Mr Devonshire submits must be taken into account,entitling Usetech to provide the services of a substitute in place of Mr Hood.I will refer to this as the right of substitution argument.The second respect in which Mr Devonshire says that the Special Commissioner erred involves an argument that ABB was not obliged to provide work for Mr Hood to do(although in fact it did do so).Therefore,it is argued that,even after applying the hypotheses required by the IR35provisions,there was insufficient mutuality of obligation for an employer/employee relationship to exist,with the result that the provisions did not apply.I will refer to this as the want of mutuality argument.7.I have considered Mr Devonshire’s arguments carefully,but my conclusion is that I cannot accept eitherof them.The issues are too complex for me to encapsulate the essence of my reasoning in this overview at the beginning of my judgment.I shall explain it as the judgment progresses.The result is that I respectfully agree with the decision of the Special Commissioner.Therefore I shall dismiss the appeal.The IR35legislation8.9.For income tax and corporation tax(income tax so far as concerns Mr Hood and corporation tax so faras concerns Usetech)the legislation is contained in section60of and Schedule12to the Finance Act 2000.The critical provisions are those which identify the cases to which Schedule12applies.If the Schedule applies there is not,if I understand correctly,any dispute as the consequences.The dispute is whether it applies at all.The case revolves around provisions in paragraph1of the Schedule.I will now set out the relevant parts of the paragraph,interpolating in italicised square brackets the actual identities in this case of the parties referred to in general terms in the paragraph.1(1)This Schedule applies where–(a)an individual(‘the worker’)[Mr Hood]personallyperforms,or is under an obligation personally to perform,services for the purposes of a business carried on byanother person(‘the client’)[ABB],(b)the services are provided not under a contract directlybetween the client[ABB]and the worker[Mr Hood]butunder arrangements involving a third party(‘theintermediary’)[Usetech],and(c)the circumstances are such that,if the services wereprovided under a contract directly between the client[ABB]and the worker[Mr Hood],the worker would be regardedfor income tax purposes as an employee of the client[ABB].(2),(3)…(4)The circumstances referred to in sub-paragraph(1)(c)include the terms on which the services are provided,having regardto the terms of the contracts forming part of the arrangements underwhich the services are provided.10.11.In the quotation of sub-paragraph(1)(b)above I have identified‘the intermediary’in this case as beingUsetech.As I will explain later,on the facts NES might also be regarded as an intermediary in the general sense of the word,but it is clear from paragraph3of Schedule12,which I need not set out verbatim,that only Usetech counts as an intermediary for the purposes of paragraph1.However,the ‘arrangements involving…the intermediary’(referred to in sub-paragraph(1)(b))may involve other persons as well as the intermediary.If they do the respects in which the other persons are also involved may affect the application or non-application of paragraph1.In the present case this could be relevant to the participation of NES in the entire transaction:NES was neither‘the worker’nor‘the client’nor‘the intermediary’,but it was involved in the arrangements in which‘the intermediary’(Usetech)was involved,so its part in those arrangements falls to be taken into account as well as Usetech’s part in them.12.A more general point of construction is worth spelling out at this stage.The conditions of sub-paragraphs(a)and(b)involve an analysis of the actual facts and legal relationships,but when that analysis showsthat those two sub-paragraphs are satisfied sub-paragraph(c)involves an exercise of constructing a hypothetical contract which did not in fact exist,and then enquiring what the consequences would have been if it had existed.There may be room in some cases for dispute about what the hypothetical contract would contain,and in the present case there is.The dispute arises in connection with the right of substitution argument which is advanced by Mr Devonshire on behalf of Usetech.I will explain how precisely the issue arises at a later stage in this judgment.13.The comparable provisions for NICs are contained in regulation6of the Social Security Contributions(Intermediaries)Regulations2000.They are not quite identical to the provisions in the Finance Act2000, but they are similar in all relevant respects.For completeness I will set out the specific wording.6(1)These Regulations apply where–(a)an individual(the worker)[Mr Hood]personally performs,or isunder an obligation personally to perform,services for the purposesof a business carried on by another person(the client)[ABB],(b)the performance of those services by the worker[Mr Hood]iscarried out,not under a contract directly between the worker[MrHood]and the client[ABB],but under arrangements involving anintermediary[Usetech],and(c)the circumstances are such that,had the arrangements taken theform of a contract between the worker[Mr Hood]and the client[ABB]the worker[Mr Hood]would be regarded for the purposes ofParts I to V of the Contributions and Benefits Act as employed inemployed earner’s employment by the client[ABB].As in the Finance Act2000there is a provision(regulation5)under which‘the intermediary’is,so far as this case is concerned,Usetech(and not NES).However,the same point applies in that,to the extent that NES was involved in the arrangements,its participation may have to be taken into account in determining whether regulation6applies notwithstanding that it was none of the parties(‘the worker’,‘the client’,or‘the intermediary’)specifically identified in the regulation.Curiously regulation6does not contain a provision like paragraph1(4)of Schedule12to the Finance Act2000,expanding on what is covered by‘the circumstances’referred to in sub-paragraph(c)of regulation6(1).However,no-one has suggested to me,nor do I consider,that that or the other minor differences between the two statutory provisions affects this case or opens a possibility of the case being decided one way for NICs and another way for income tax and corporation tax.The facts14.15.Mr Hood has now retired but at the time when this case arose he worked in connection with theproduction of design drawings of oil wells,rigs and similar equipment.He was a specialist in the use ofa software product called Pro-Engineer,which produced3-D models of such equipment.He started tooperate through his one man company,Usetech,in May1996.There was no evidence before the Special Commissioner about his arrangements before then,so the Commissioner inevitably decided the case on the basis of the Usetech arrangements alone,uninfluenced by what Mr Hood’s tax and national insurance status may have been in earlier years.etech had several engagements for the provision of Mr Hood’s services to‘end users’over its tradinglife from1996to May2003(when Mr Hood was obliged to retire by reason of ill health).Some of the engagements were pursuant to direct contracts between Usetech and the end users,but engagements with ABB were not,since,as I explain in more detail in the next paragraph,NES was interposed between Usetech and ABB(the end user).There were three different periods when Mr Hood was working in the business of ABB at its premises in Aberdeen.The present case is specifically about the period of17 months beginning in June2000.(In fact the Special Commissioner was only strictly concerned with the period from1June2000to31March2001,but I assume that that was for some procedural reason to do with tax years or companies’accounting periods or something of that nature.The Commissioner’s decision would undoubtedly govern the whole period of the engagement for Mr Hood to work in the business of ABB.)17.ABB is a United Kingdom subsidiary of a world-wide group which provides a range of equipment to theoil and gas industry.It has a core staff of750to850permanent employees,but it supplements them when demand requires by taking on what its Human Resources Manager described as‘sub-contract employees’.This was done by means of companies described as‘agencies’,of which NES was one.There was no evidence from NES,but on its letter heading it describes itself as‘Europe’s largest technical recruitment agency’.As will appear,NES sometimes acted contractually as a principal rather than as an agent in the strict legal sense.18.The way in which Mr Hood was engaged to work in the business of ABB,which I assume was typical ofhow ABB and NES operated,was as follows.Management within ABB identified that ABB had a need for another specialist in Pro-Engineer,but did not wish to have another permanent employee recruited.The Human Resources manager contacted agencies,including NES.NES knew about Mr Hood,and contacted him,or more strictly contacted his personal company,Usetech.Mr Hood was obviouslywilling to go and work in Aberdeen in ABB’s business,because the matter proceeded.If ABB had not already known Mr Hood it would have required to interview him first,and had in fact done so for the earlier occasion when he had been provided to it through NES.However,since it already knew him it did not require an interview on this occasion.Two contracts were entered into,one between Usetech and NES and one between NES and ABB.Each contract appears to have been made on22May2000,to commence on1June2000,although the documents which were before the Special Commissioner are a little confusing about this.The system of having two contracts is quite common(or so I understand),and contracts of these kinds are sometimes referred to as‘the lower level contract’and‘the upper level contract’.However,I will refer to them in this judgment as‘the Usetech/NES contract’(the lower level) and‘the NES/ABB contract’(the upper level).There must also have been a contractual relationship(at the lowest level)between Mr Hood and Usetech,but it appears that there was no written contract of service.At least no such written contract was produced in evidence.19.As regards the Usetech/NES contract(the lower level contract)there appear to have been two contractualdocuments:a one page letter of offer by NES signed by way of acceptance by Mr Hood on behalf of Usetech,and a longer set of‘Terms and Conditions’in standard form.A complication here is that the documents before the Special Commissioner appear to have included three versions of the first document and three of the second.This may have had something to do with variations in the anticipated duration of the engagement,but there are aspects of the duplication or triplication of documents which puzzle me.However,I do not think that they are fundamental to the issues in the case.20.The first of the three offer letters is dated22May2000.It is from NES and is addressed to Usetech at MrHood’s home address.It includes the following:‘We are pleased to offer you a contract to supply contract staff in a position as Pro-Engineer Designer in accordance with the following:NAME(S)OF CONTRACT STAFF:WILLIAM HOOD.CLIENT:ABB VECTO GRAY.’21.Certain brief other details follow,covering such matters as the hourly rate of payment,thecommencement date,and the notice period.Mr Hood signed to indicate acceptance.For completeness I mention that the other two offer letters have slightly different periods of service,do not mention Mr Hood personally and are not signed by him by way of acceptance.I do not follow what their relevance to the appeal is or what their function was,and I have concentrated on the letter dated22May2000.22.I turn to the longer form document,the standard form headed‘Terms and Conditions for the supply ofservices to NES International Ltd(performed by a limited company sub-contractor’.23.There are three versions of this document in the documents which were before the SpecialCommissioner and which are now before me.None of them mentions Usetech(or any other specific sub-contractor for that matter),and none of them is signed by or on behalf of either NES or Usetech(or any other person).The evidential status of the three documents in the bundle is not clear to me,but I will assume that at least one of them was supplied by NES to Usetech(in common,I assume,with all other subcontractor companies which had similar relationships with NES),and that it did in general regulate the contractual relationship between the two companies.The Special Commissioner said,and I agree, that although the three versions of the Terms and Conditions are not quite identical,the differences between them do not appear to be material to this case.24.The Terms and Conditions are quite long documents.They are in no sense tailor-made for the particularrelationship being entered into between Mr Hood,Usetech,NES and ABB.They are standard form documents plainly intended to be used by NES across the spread of arrangements which it makes with companies like Usetech to enable the services of employees of such companies to be provided to outside clients like ABB.It would be disproportionate for me to set out one of the documents in this judgment or to attempt a full summary of it.In the broadest of terms it provides for‘the sub-contractor’(in this case Usetech)to agree with NES that it will provide‘the Services’to the reasonable satisfaction of‘the client’, that is the end user,being ABB in this case.The agreement which the sub-contractor has,however,is between it and NES,not between it and the end user.‘The Services’(which Usetech agreed with NES to provide to the reasonable satisfaction of ABB)are defined as‘the work or project identified in the contract letter and/or notified to the sub-contractor by the Client’.25.I assume that the contract letter referred to is the letter of22May2000(or possibly all three letters)bywhich NES offered the engagement to Usetech and Usetech accepted it.On that basis it appears that(in so far as the matter is affected by the22May2000letter,which was the only document which appears to have signed on behalf of Usetech by way of acceptance)‘the Services’were the services of Mr Hood as Pro-Engineer Designer.26.The Terms and Conditions cover a range of matters which I need not describe in this judgment.Theyinclude matters such as payments of fees(to be made to Usetech by NES,not by ABB),use of motor vehicles,trade secrets,and non-competition by the sub-contractor with the end user(NES’s‘client’).There is,however,one provision which I should set out in full,since it provides the basis for Mr Devonshire’s right of substitution argument.The final clause is headed‘General’,and contains a number of different provisions.One of them reads as follows:The Sub-Contractor shall be entitled to substitute the named Personnel for analternative,with the prior written consent of the Company–such consent notto be withheld if the proposed replacement has the appropriate skills,qualifications and abilities in the reasonable opinion of the Client.I specifically point out that‘the Company’,which can give prior written consent to a substitution,is NES,and is not‘the Client’:in this case it is not ABB.Further,the only parties to this agreement are the sub-contractor(Usetech in this case)and NES.The client(e.g.ABB)is not a party.I will examine the argument which Mr Devonshire bases on this provision at a later stage in this judgment.27.28.So much for the contractual relationship between Usetech and NES.There was also a contractualrelationship between NES and ABB.I should state at the outset that Usetech and Mr Hood did not know the detailed content of that relationship.If they thought about the matter they must obviously and correctly have assumed that there would be a contract of some sort between NES and ABB,that it would provide for NES in some way to cause Usetech to provide the services of Mr Hood to ABB,and that ABB would make payments to NES for the services.But I doubt that Usetech and Mr Hood would have known or assumed anything more detailed about the NES/ABB contractual relationship.29.There was indeed an NES/ABB contract(an upper level contract),and it was placed before the SpecialCommissioner.I understand that the copy of it was obtained from ABB.It takes the form of a letter agreement,signed on behalf of both parties,dated22May2000,which was also the date of the offer letter made by NES to Usetech and signed by way of acceptance by Mr Hood.The letter which constitutes the NES/ABB contract is from NES to ABB.It is headed:‘Sub-Contractor–Usetech Ltd.Contract Staff–Mr William Hood.’It begins:‘We confirm that the above Contract Staff supplied by the above sub-contractor will be available to commence work on30th May2000to perform the services of Pro-Engineer Designer.’30.A number of other detailed matters were covered,including the hourly rate payable by ABB to NESfor the services(a little higher,as one would expect,than the hourly rate payable onward by NES to Usetech),a seven days notice period,and a minimum number of weekly hours(37.5hours).Two pages of detailed Terms and Conditions are attached,but they do not appear to me to add anything relevant (except for condition3.2,to which I refer in paragraph63below).31.There is nothing in the NES/ABB contract about the provision of a substitute for Mr Hood,and in myview that contract is solely one for the provision of his services,not one for the provision of the services of him or a substitute who is reasonably acceptable to ABB.32.Moving on from the contracts as such,there are some other factual points which might have a bearing onthe right of substitution argument and which I ought therefore to mention.The question of a substitute for Mr Hood never arose.For the17months of the engagement which began on30May(or1June)2000 the services were provided entirely by Mr Hood himself.Mr Hood did,however,say in his witness statement that there were other Pro-Engineer specialists whom he knew and whom he could have sent.I should also quote the following findings from paragraph25of the Special Commissioner’s decision.[T]he reality…is that ABB required Mr Hood’s services.It was notcontracting,indirectly,with[Usetech]for the supply of a person competent inPro-Engineer;it required Mr Hood.It would not have accepted a substitute,ifMr Hood had sent one,without interview and certainly not on the basis thatMr Hood or the substitute might attend as[Usetech]elected from day to day.Mr Hunter’s evidence,which I accept,can lead to no other conclusion thanthat the arrangement was personal to Mr Hood.I do not go so far as to saythat the right to substitute was a sham–Mr Hunter agreed that,if Mr Hoodhad become unavailable and suggested someone to continue in his place,thatsuggestion would be given some weight–but Mr Hood and[Usetech]couldnot dictate,at will,who would perform the work:it had to be Mr Hood.In myview,the‘right’of substitution was largely illusory.33.34.So far as the right of substitution argument is concerned I do not think that there are any other specificaspects of the facts which I need to describe.However Mr Devonshire also advances the want of mutuality argument,and there are some other factual points which I ought to mention,since they could be of some relevance to that argument.The Special Commissioner,having heard evidence from Mr Hood and from two witnesses from ABB,found that any temporary member of staff(like Mr Hood)was treated,on a day to day basis,in a manner barely distinguishable from an employee.One of the ABB witnesses said that as a general rule temporary staff were expected to work50hours a week,and Mr Hood did so.Mr Hood’s own evidence was that he typically worked for58hours per week.He also said that,if there was no work for him to do,he could be sent home.He could recall at least three or four occasions when the computer crashed and he was sent home without payment.The Special Commissioner recorded this aspect of Mr Hood’s evidence,but did not make a specific finding of his own on it.I confess that I have some reservations about it,and I will return to this later when I discuss the want of mutuality argument.Commissioner’’s decisionThe Special Commissioner35.36.In a careful and comprehensive reserved decision the Special Commissioner,Mr Bishopp,set out thestatutory provisions and reviewed the facts.He noted that the IR35provisions(both for tax and for NICs) require a notional contract between Mr Hood and ABB to be assumed,and that the critical question was whether that contract would have been a contract of employment.He considered a number of factors which might bear on the question,and in the course of doing so he quoted a well-known passage from the judgment of McKenna J in Ready Mixed Concrete(South East)Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance[1968]2QB497at515:A contract of service exists if these three conditions are fulfilled:(i)Theservant agrees that,in consideration of a wage or other remuneration,he willprovide his own work and skill in the performance of some service for hismaster.(ii)He agrees,expressly or impliedly,that in the performance of thatservice he will be subject to the other’s control to a sufficient degree to makethat other master.(iii)The other provisions of the contract are consistent withits being a contract of service.The Special Commissioner considered condition(iii)first,and concluded that there was nothing in the notional contract which was‘incompatible with the relationship between them[ABB and Mr Hood]of employer and employee’(paragraph24of the decision).It was at this point that he considered the issue of substitution,doing so in the terms which I quoted in paragraph23above and concluding that in his view‘the right of substitution was largely illusory’.(As will appear later I would put the matter rather differently,but I would not change the‘bottom line’conclusion that the provision for substitution in the Usetech/NES contract does not lead to a decision in favour of Usetech.)37.38.Moving on,the Special Commissioner compared Mr Hood with normal employees of ABB who hadsimilar skills to his own,and saw little outward difference.I quote a few extracts from paragraph27of the decision:Mr Hood was expected to undertake the work allocated to him by ABB and todo so in accordance with its directions and at times of its choosing.…In that,too,he was in materially the same position as an employee.…[O]verall itseems to me that there is no difference between the measure of controlexercised over his work by ABB and that it would have exercised over anemployee of his status.39.40.The Special Commissioner considered that,in so far as there was a requirement for mutuality ofobligation to exist for a relationship to be a contract of employment,the requirement was in any event satisfied by the obligation on the one hand to work and on the other to remunerate.(In my view there may be rather more to be said on this point,but as I will explain I do not disagree with the Commissioner’s conclusion.)41.The Commissioner also considered whether Mr Hood or Usetech could realistically be seen to have beenin business on their own account,and was of the opinion that they could not.For that and the other reasons which I have summarised and which he examined more fully he decided:‘The conclusion must be that the notional contract between ABB and Mr Hood was one of service.I can find no factor in the case which is inconsistent with that conclusion.’The appeal to this court42.In the overview at the beginning of this judgment I observed that Mr Devonshire has limited the groundsof appeal to two issues,which I am calling the right of substitution argument and the want of mutuality argument.Points about the right of substitution and points about the alleged want of mutuality were made on behalf of Usetech before the Special Commissioner,but,as it seems to me,they were made not so much as self-contained arguments either of which would be sufficient entirely by itself to conclude the appeal in favour of Usetech,but rather as items in a comprehensive view of the interconnecting relationships between Mr Hood,Usetech,NES and ABB.I think that the Special Commissioner perceived the main case advanced on behalf of Usetech as being one which looked at all aspects of the case together and in the round.Those aspects included the provision in the Usetech/NES contract about substitution and also what was contended to be a want of mutuality between Usetech and ABB.But they also included points made about the degree of control exercised by ABB over the work done by Mr Hood, about alleged differences in practice between Mr Hood’s position in the operations of ABB and the positions of full time employees,about other activities altogether carried on by Mr Hood through Usetech,and so on.。

民事判决书范本中英文对照篇一：民事判决书范本扬州市邗江区人民法院民事判决书(2019)扬民初字第50号原告张云祥，,男，1969年5月1日出生，汉族。

扬州市邗江区大成汽车维修公司修理工，现住扬州市邗江区华扬西路188号。

委托代理人张思成，扬州鼎天律师事务所律师。

被告金永华，男，1970年8月27日出生，汉族。

扬州市邗江区公交公司司机，现住扬州市维扬区大学南路177号。

委托代理人李炳辉，扬州天平律师事务所律师。

被告李均，男，1965年3月29日出生，汉族。

扬州市茂昌土建行公司总经理，现住扬州市橡树湾栋。

委托代理人付云，青云律师事务所律师。

被告中国人民财产保险股份有限公司扬州支公司。

法定代表人李来福，中国人民财产保险股份有限公司扬州支公司经理。

委托代理人韩冰，天网律师事务所律师。

原告张云祥诉被告金永华、李均、中国人民财产保险股份有限公司扬州支公司道路交通事故人身损害赔偿纠纷一案，本院依法组成合议庭，公开开庭进行了审理。

原告张云祥及其委托代理人张思成、被告金永华及其委托代理人李炳辉、被告李均及其委托代理人付云、被告中国人民财产保险股份有限公司扬州支公司委托代理人付云到庭参加诉讼。

本案现已审理终结。

原告张云祥诉称，2019年7月29日深夜，被告金永华驾驶苏-50772亚星牌小型客车（该车所有人为李均，该车已在中国人民财产保险股份有限公司扬州支公司投保机动车交通事故责任强制保险和第三者责任险）前往扬州市维扬区西湖镇，行驶至西湖镇南大街时，与交会的仪征市刘大静驾驶的大型货车发生碰撞，造成乘坐人原告张云祥重伤。

扬州市公安局交通巡逻警察支队二大队对交通事故进行处理，核发的交通事故责任认定书认定，被告金永华应负事故的全部责任，要求判令三被告赔偿原告。

民事判决书范本中英文对照xx省xx市xx区人民法院民事判决书(1993）xx民初字第18号原告：金xx，女，1970年4月2日出生，汉族，农民，住xx市xx 区x x镇x村。

委托代理人：杜xx，xx律师事务所律师。

被告：王xx，男，1969年7月19日出生，汉族，农民，住xx市x x区xx镇xx村。

委托代理人：张xx，xx律师事务所律师。

原告金xx诉被告王xx解除非法同居关系纠纷一案，本院受理后，依法组成合议庭，公开开庭进展了审理。

原告金xx及其委托代理人杜xx、被告王xx及其委托代理人张xx到庭参加诉讼。

本案现已审理终结。

原告金xx诉称，要解除与被告王xx的非法同居关系，并分割共同财产。

被告王xx辩称，原告与被告的非法同居关系已经解除，财产也已经分割完毕，原告起诉无理。

经审理查明，1987年3月，原告、被告双方经人介绍相识后，即非法同居。

同居后双方到市里做买卖蔬菜的生意。

1988年12月底，原、被告回到x x村在原告家中居住。

1991年3月到被告家中居住，与被告父母分居生活。

在此期间，原、被告于1989年3月买潍坊产12马力拖拉机一部搞运输。

外欠原、被告运输费800元，后双方将拖拉机卖给关xx，卖价5000元，关xx除付部分款外，尚欠原、被告1700元。

1991年春，原、被告建北屋8间，厕所、厨房、大门各一间，原、被告投资4000元。

建房后，原、被告因家务琐事发生矛盾，原告回到娘家居住。

后经协商，被告给原告自行车一辆，现金2500元，原告收下后，鉴于同居后的共同财产分割不均，故诉至本院。

原、被告双方同居前无任何财产。

同居后共同购置了250型摩托车一辆，方桌一张，椅子两把，石英钟一个，双人床一张，凳子两个，黑白电视机一台，单桦犁一个，被子两床。

本院认为，原、被告未达法定婚龄即同居，其行为是违法的，非法同居关系应予解除。

原告要求分割财产的诉讼恳求应予支持。

原、被告所建房屋，部分费用属被告的父母投资，被告应适当多得。

民事起诉书格式中英文对照COMPLAINTTo：________________ People's CourtPlaintiff：Domicile：Legal Representative：Position：Defendant：Domicile：Legal Representative：Position：CLAIMS：1. To order the Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff the due amount of RMB _____ for the dispatched products， plus the interests of RMB ________ thereon， in the aggregate of RMB __________；2.To order the court fees to be borne by the Defendant.FACTS AND REASONS：The Defendant was one of the distributors of the Plaintiff for various kinds of products in theterritory of ___________， China. From September， xx to October， xx， the Plaintiff dispatched various kinds of products in the aggregate values of RMB____________. （see Exhibit I）Each of the said transactions was duly signed and received by the Defendant （see Exhibit II）。

Though the Plaintiff has repeatedly demanded payment， the Defendant fails to liquidate the outstanding debts in due time.It is the Plaintiff's position that the indebtedness arising out of the transactions between the Plaintiff and the Defendant shall be under the jurisdiction of the China's laws. The Defendant's refusal to satisfy the agreed amounts after receipt of the above-mentioned lubricants resulted in tremendous economic losses on the side of the Plaintiff （see Exhibit III）。

本文部分内容来自网络，本司不为其真实性负责，如有异议或侵权请及时联系，本司将予以删除！== 本文为word格式，下载后可随意编辑修改！ ==英汉对照法律文书(1)关于账目的起诉状1.管辖权声明。

2.根据附件中证物A所示的账目，被告应支付原告____________美元。

据此……(同格式1)Form2COMPLAINT ON AN ACCOUNT1.Allegation of jurisdiction.2.Defendant owes plaintiff ___________ dollars according to the account hereto annexed as Exhibit A.Wherefore( etc .as in Form1)格式3关于已出售和交付货物的起诉状1.管辖权声明。

2.在1936年6月1日至1936年12月1日期间，原告出售并交付被告一批货物，应由被告向原千偿付该货物款项_____________美元。

据此……(同格式1)Form3COMPLAINT FOR GOODS SOLD AND DELIVERED1.Allegation of jurisdiction.2.Defendant owes plaintiff _________ dollars for goods sold and delivered by plaintiff to defendant between June 1，1936 and December 1，1936.Wherefore (etc .as in Form1)。

格式4关于金钱借贷的起诉状1.管辖权声明。

2.原告于1936年6月1日借给被告___________美元，被告应予偿还。

据此……(同格式1)Form 4COMPLAINT FOR MONEY LENT1.Allegation of jurisdiction.2.Defendant owes plaintiff ___________ dollars for money lent by plaintiff to defendant on June 1，1936.Wherefore( etc .as in Form1)格式5关于金钱误付的起诉状1.管辖权声明。

Order of the President of the People's Republic ofChinaNo.44The Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, adopted at the Fourth Session of the Seventh National People's Congress on April 9, 1991, is promulgated now, and shall enter into force as of the date of promulgation.President of the People's Republic of China: Yang ShangkunApril 9,1991 Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of ChinaContentsPart One General ProvisionsChapter I The Aim, Scope of Application and Basic PrinciplesChapter II JurisdictionSection 1 Jurisdiction by Forum LevelSection 2 Territorial JurisdictionSection 3 Transfer and Designation of JurisdictionChapter III Trial OrganizationChapter IV WithdrawalChapter V Participants in ProceedingsSection 1 PartiesSection 2 Agents ad LitemChapter VI EvidenceChapter VII Time Periods and ServiceSection 1 Time PeriodsSection 2 ServiceChapter VIII ConciliationChapter IX Property Preservation and Advance ExecutionChapter X Compulsory Measures Against Obstruction of Civil ProceedingsChapter XI Litigation CostsPart Two Trial ProcedureChapter XII Ordinary Procedure of First InstanceSection 1 Bringing a Lawsuit and Entertaining a CaseSection 2 Preparations for TrialSection 3 Trial in CourtSection 4 Suspension and Termination of LitigationSection 5 Judgment and OrderChapter XIII Summary ProcedureChapter XIV Procedure of Second InstanceChapter XV Special ProcedureSection 1 General ProvisionsSection 2 Cases Concerning the Qualification of VotersSection 3 Cases Concerning the Declaration of a Person as Missing or DeadSection 4 Cases Concerning the Adjudgment of Legal Incapacity or Restricted LegalCapacity of CitizensSection 5 Cases Concerning the Determination of a Property as OwnerlessChapter XVI Procedure for Trial SupervisionChapter XVII Procedure for Hastening Debt RecoveryChapter XVIII Procedure for Publicizing Public Notice for Assertion of Claims Enter-prises Part Three Procedure of ExecutionChapter XX General ProvisionsChapter XXI Application for Execution and ReferralChapter XXII Execution MeasuresChapter XXIII Suspension and Termination of ExecutionPart Four Special Provisions for Civil Procedure of Cases Involving Foreign ElementChapter XXIV General PrinciplesChapter XXV JurisdictionChapter XXVI Service and Time PeriodsChapter XXVII Property PreservationChapter XXVIII ArbitrationChapter XXIX Judicial AssistancePart One General ProvisionsChapter I The Aim, Scope of Application and Basic PrinciplesArticle 1 The Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China is formulated on the basis of the Constitution and in the light of the experience and actual conditions of our country in the trial of civil cases.Article 2 The Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China aims to protect the exercise of the litigation rights of the parties and ensure the ascertaining of facts by the people's courts, distinguish right from wrong, apply the law correctly, try civil cases promptly, affirm civil rights and obligations, impose sanctions for civil wrongs, protect the lawful rights and interests of the parties, educate citizens to voluntarily abide by the law, maintain the social and economic order, and guarantee the smooth progress of the socialist construction.Article 3In dealing with civil litigation arising from disputes on property and personal relations between citizens, legal persons or other organizations and between the three of them, the people's courts shall apply the provisions of this Law.Article 4 Whoever engages in civil litigation within the territory of the People's Republic of China must abide by this Law.Article 5Aliens, stateless persons, foreign enterprises and organizations that bring suits or enter appearance in the people's courts shall have the same litigation rights and obligations as citizens, legal persons and other organizations of the People's Republic of China.If the courts of a foreign country impose restrictions on the civil litigation rights of the citizens, legal persons and other organizations of the People's Republic of China, the people's courts of the People's Republic of China shall follow the principle of reciprocity regarding the civil litigation rights of the citizens, enterprises and organizations of that foreign country.Article 6 The people's courts shall exercise judicial powers with respect to civil cases.The people's courts shall try civil cases independently in accordance with the law, and shall be subject to no interference by any administrative organ, public organization or individual.Article 7 In trying civil cases, the people's courts must base themselves on facts and take the law as the criterion.Article 8 The parties in civil litigation shall have equal litigation rights. The people's courts shall, in conducting the trials, safeguard their rights, facilitate their exercising the rights, and apply the law equally to them.Article 9In trying civil cases, the people's courts shall conduct conciliation for the parties on a voluntary and lawful basis; if conciliation fails, judgments shall be rendered without delay.Article 10In trying civil cases, the people's courts shall, according to the provisions of the law, follow the systems of panel hearing, withdrawal, public trial and the court of second instance being that of last instance.Article 11Citizens of all nationalities shall have the right to use their native spoken and written languages in civil proceedings.Where minority nationalities live in aggregation in a community or where several nationalities live together in one area, the people's courts shall conduct hearings and issue legal documents in thespoken and written languages commonly used by the local nationalities.The people's courts shall provide translations for any participant in the proceedings who is not familiar with the spoken or written languages commonly used by the local nationalities.Article 12Parties to civil actions are entitled in the trials by the people's courts to argue for themselves.Article 13 The parties are free to deal with their own civil rights and litigation rights the way they prefer within the scope provided by the law.Article 14The people's procuratorates shall have the right to exercise legal supervision over civil proceedings.Article 15Where an act has infringed upon the civil rights and interests of the State, a collective organization or an individual, any State organ, public organization, enterprise or institution may support the injured unit or individual to bring an action in a people's court.Article 16 The people's conciliation committees shall be mass organizations to conduct conciliation of civil disputes under the guidance of the grassroots level people's governments and the basic level people's courts.The people's conciliation committee shall conduct conciliation for the parties according to the Law and on a voluntary basis. The parties concerned shall carry out the settlement agreement reached through conciliation; those who decline conciliation or those for whom conciliation has failed or those who have backed out of the settlement agreement may institute legal proceedings in a people's court.If a people's conciliation committee, in conducting conciliation of civil disputes, acts contrary to the law, rectification shall be made by the people's court.Article 17 The people's congresses of the national autonomous regions may formulate, in accordance with the Constitution and the principles of this Law, and in conjunction with the specific circumstances of the local nationalities, adaptive and supplementary provisions. Such provisions made by an autonomous region shall be submitted to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress for approval; those made by an autonomous prefecture or autonomous county shall be submitted to the standing committee of the people's congress of the relevant province or autonomous region for approval and to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress for the record.Chapter II JurisdictionSection 1 Jurisdiction by Forum LevelArticle 18 The basic people's courts shall have jurisdiction as courts of first instance over civil cases, unless otherwise provided in this Law.Article 19 The intermediate people's courts shall have jurisdiction as courts of first instance over the following civil cases:(1) major cases involving foreign element;(2) cases that have major impact on the area under their jurisdiction; and(3)cases as determined by the Supreme People's Court to be under the jurisdiction of the intermediate people's courts.Article 20 The high people's courts shall have jurisdiction as courts of first instance over civil cases that have major impact on the areas under their jurisdiction.Article 21 The Supreme People's Court shall have jurisdiction as the court of first instance over the following civil cases:(1) cases that have major impact on the whole country; and(2) cases that the Supreme People's Court deems it should try.Section 2 Territorial JurisdictionArticle 22 A civil lawsuit brought against a citizen shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court of the place where the defendant has his domicile; if the place of the defendant's domicile is differentfrom that of his habitual residence, the lawsuit shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court of the place of his habitual residence.A civil lawsuit brought against a legal person or any other organization shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court of the place where the defendant has his domicile.Where the domiciles or habitual residences of several defendants in the same lawsuit are in the areas under the jurisdiction of two or more people's courts, all of those people's courts shall have jurisdiction over the lawsuit.Article 23 The civil lawsuits described below shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court of the place where the plaintiff has his domicile; if the place of the plaintiff's domicile is different from that of his habitual residence, the lawsuit shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court of the place of the plaintiff's habitual residence:(1) those concerning personal status brought against persons not residing within the territory of the People's Republic of China;(2) those concerning the personal status of persons whose whereabouts are unknown or who have been declared as missing;(3) those brought against persons who are undergoing rehabilitation through labour; and(4) those brought against persons who are in imprisonment.Article 24 A lawsuit brought on a contract dispute shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court of the place where the defendant has his domicile or where the contract is performed.Article 25 The parties to a contract may agree to choose in their written contract the people's court of the place where the defendant has his domicile, where the contract is performed, where the contract is signed, where the plaintiff has his domicile or where the object of the action is located to exercise jurisdiction over the case, provided that the provisions of this Law regarding jurisdiction by forum level and exclusive jurisdiction are not violated.Article 26 A lawsuit brought on an insurance contract dispute shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court of the place where the defendant has his domicile or where the insured object is located.Article 27 A lawsuit brought on a bill dispute shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court of the place where the bill is to be paid or where the defendant has his domicile.Article 28 A lawsuit arising from a dispute over a railway, road, water, or air transport contract or over a combined transport contract shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court of the place of dispatch or the place of destination or where the defendant has his domicile.Article 29 A lawsuit brought on a tortuous act shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court of the place where the tort is committed or where the defendant has his domicile.Article 30 A lawsuit brought on claims for damages caused by a railway, road, water transport or air accident shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court of the place where the accident occurred or where the vehicle or ship first arrived after the accident or where the aircraft first landed after the accident, or where the defendant has his domicile.Article 31A lawsuit brought on claims for damages caused by a collision at sea or by any other maritime accident shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court of the place where the collision occurred or where the ship in collision first docked after the accident or where the ship at fault was detained, or where the defendant has his domicile.Article 32 A lawsuit instituted for expenses of maritime salvage shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court of the place where the salvage took place or where the salvaged ship first docked after the disaster.Article 33 A lawsuit brought for general average shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court of the place where the ship first docked or where the adjustment of general average was conducted or where the voyage ended.Article 34 The following cases shall be under the exclusive jurisdiction of the people's courts herein specified:(1) a lawsuit brought on a dispute over real estate shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court of the place where the estate is located;(2) a lawsuit brought on a dispute over harbour operations shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court of the place where the harbour is located; and(3) a lawsuit brought on a dispute over succession shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court of the place where the decedent had his domicile upon his death, or where the principal part of his estate is located.Article 35 When two or more people's courts have jurisdiction over a lawsuit, the plaintiff may bring his lawsuit in one of these people's courts; if the plaintiff brings the lawsuit in two or more people's courts that have jurisdiction over the lawsuit, the people's court in which the case was first entertained shall have jurisdiction.Section 3 Transfer and Designation of JurisdictionArticle 36 If a people's court finds that a case it has entertained is not under its jurisdiction, it shall refer the case to the people's court that has jurisdiction over the case. The people's court to which a case has been referred shall entertain the case, and if it considers that, according to the relevant regulations, the case referred to it is not under its jurisdiction, it shall report to a superior people's court for the designation of jurisdiction and shall not independently refer the case again to another people's court.Article 37 If a people's court which has jurisdiction over a case is unable to exercise the jurisdiction for special reasons, a superior people's court shall designate another court to exercise jurisdiction.In the event of a jurisdictional dispute between two or more people's courts, it shall be resolved by the disputing parties through consultation; if the dispute cannot be so resolved, it shall be reported to their common superior people's court for the designation of jurisdiction.Article 38If a party to an action objects to the jurisdiction of a people's court after the court has entertained the case, the party must raise the objection within the period prescribed for the submission of defence. The people's court shall examine the objection. If the objection is established, the people's court shall order the case to be transferred to the people's court that has jurisdiction over it; if not, the people's court shall reject it.Article 39 The people's courts at higher levels shall have the power to try civil cases over which the people's courts at lower levels have jurisdiction as courts of first instance; they may also transfer civil cases over which they themselves have jurisdiction as courts of first instance to people's courts at lower levels for trial.If a people's court at a lower level that has jurisdiction over a civil case as court of first instance deems it necessary to have the case to be tried by a people's court at a higher level, it may submit it to and request the people's court at a higher level to try the case.Chapter III Trial OrganizationArticle 40 The people's court of first instance shall try civil cases by a collegial panel composed of both judges and judicial assessors or of judges alone. The collegial panel must have an odd number of members.Civil cases in which summary procedure is followed shall be tried by a single judge alone.When performing their duties, the judicial assessors shall have equal rights and obligations as the judges.Article 41 The people's court of second instance shall try civil cases by a collegial panel of judges. The collegial panel must have an odd number of members.For the retrial of a remanded case, the people's court of first instance shall form a new collegial panel in accordance with the procedure of first instance.If a case for retrial was originally tried at first instance, a new collegial panel shall be formed according to the procedure of first instance; if the case was originally tried at second instance or was brought by a people's court at a higher level to it for trial, a new collegial panel shall be formed according to the procedure of second instance.Article 42 The president of the court or the chief judge of a division of the court shall designate a judge to serve as the presiding judge of the collegial panel; if the president or the chief judge participates in the trial, he himself shall serve as the presiding judge.Article 43 When deliberating a case, a collegial panel shall observe the rule of majority. Thedeliberations shall be recorded in writing, and the transcript shall be signed by the members of the collegial panel. Dissenting opinions in the deliberations must be truthfully entered in the transcript.Article 44 The judicial officers shall deal with all cases impartially and in accordance with the law.The judicial officers shall not accept any treat or gift from the parties or their agents ad litem.Any judicial officer who commits embezzlement, accepts bribes, engages in malpractice for personal benefits or who perverts the law in passing judgment shall be investigated for legal responsibility; if the act constitutes a crime, the offender shall be investigated for criminal responsibility according to the law.Chapter IV WithdrawalArticle 45 A judicial officer shall of himself withdraw from the case, and the parties thereto shall be entitled to apply orally or in writing for his withdrawal in any of the following circumstances:(1) he being a party to the case or a near relative of a party or an agent ad litem in the case;(2) he being an interested party in the case; or(3)he having some other kind of relationship with a party to the case, which might affect the impartiality of the trial.The above provisions shall also apply to clerks, interpreters, expert witnesses and inspection personnel.Article 46 In applying for the withdrawal, the party shall state the reason and submit the application at the beginning of the proceedings; the application may also be submitted before the closing of arguments in court if the reason for the withdrawal is known to him only after the proceedings begin.Pending a decision by the people's court regarding the withdrawal applied for, the judicial officer concerned shall temporarily suspend his participation in the proceedings, with the exception, however, of cases that require the taking of emergency measures.Article 47 The withdrawal of the presiding judge who is president of the court shall be decided by the judicial committee; the withdrawal of judicial officers shall be decided by the court president; and the withdrawal of other personnel by the presiding judge.Article 48 The decision of a people's court on an application made by any party for withdrawal shall be made orally or in writing within three days after the application was made. If the applicant is not satisfied with the decision, he may apply for reconsideration which could be granted only once. During the period of reconsideration, the person whose withdrawal has been applied for shall not suspend his participation in the proceedings. The decision of a people's court on the reconsideration shall be made within three days after receiving the application and the applicant shall be notified of it accordingly.Chapter V Participants in ProceedingsSection 1 PartiesArticle 49 Any citizen, legal person and any other organization may become a party to a civil action.Legal persons shall be represented by their legal representatives in the litigation. Other organizations shall be represented by their principal heads in the proceedings.Article 50 Parties to an action shall have the right to appoint agents, apply for withdrawals, collect and provide evidence, proffer arguments, request conciliation, file an appeal and apply for execution.Parties to an action may have access to materials pertaining to the case and make copies thereof and other legal documents pertaining to the case. The scope of and rules for consulting and making copies of them shall be specified by the Supreme People's Court.Parties to an action must exercise their litigation rights in accordance with the law, observe the procedures and carry out legally effective written judgments or orders and conciliation statements. Article 51 The two parties may reach a compromise of their own accord.Article 52 The plaintiff may relinquish or modify his claims. The defendant may admit or rebut the claims and shall have the right to file counterclaims.Article 53 When one party or both parties consist of two or more than two persons, their object of action being the same or of the same category and the people's court considers that, with the consent of the parties, the action can be tried combined, it is a joint action.If a party of two or more persons to a joint action have common rights and obligations with respect to the object of action and the act of any one of them is recognized by the others of the party, such an act shall be valid for all the rest of the party; if a party of two or more persons have no common rights and obligations with respect to the object of action, the act of any one of them shall not be valid for the rest.Article 54 If the persons comprising a party to a joint action is large in number, the party may elect representatives from among themselves to act for them in the litigation. The acts of such representatives in the litigation shall be valid for the party they represent. However, modification or waiver of claims or admission of the claims of the other party or pursuing a compromise with the other party by the representatives shall be subject to the consent of the party they represent.Article 55 Where the object of action is of the same category and the persons comprising one of the parties is large but uncertain in number at the commencement of the action, the people's court may issue a public notice, stating the particulars and claims of the case and informing those entitled to participate in the action to register their rights with the people's court within a fixed period of time.Those who have registered their rights with the people's court may elect representatives from among themselves to proceed with the litigation; if the election fails its purpose, such representatives may be determined by the people's court through consultation with those who have registered their rights with the court.The acts of such representative in the litigation shall be valid for the party they represent; however, modification or waiver of claims or admission of the claims of the other party or pursuing a compromise with the other party by the representatives shall be subject to the consent of the party they represent.The judgments or written orders rendered by the people's court shall be valid for all those who have registered their rights with the court. Such judgments or written orders shall apply to those who have not registered their rights but have instituted legal proceedings during period of limitation of the action.Article 56 If a third party considers that he has an independent claim to the object of action of both parties, he shall have the right to bring an action.Where the outcome of the case will affect a third party's legal interest, such party, though having no independent claim to the object of action of both parties, may file a request to participate in the proceedings or the people's court shall notify the third party to participate. A third party that is to bear civil liability in accordance with the judgment of the people's court shall be entitled to the rights and obligations of a party in litigation.Section 2 Agents ad LitemArticle 57Any person with no legal capacity to engage in litigation shall have his guardian or guardians as statutory agents to act for him in a lawsuit. If the statutory agents try to shift responsibility as agents ad litem upon one another, the people's court shall appoint one of them to represent the person in litigation.Article 58 A party to an action, or statutory agent may appoint one or two persons to act as his agents ad litem.A lawyer, a near relative of the party, a person recommended by a relevant social organization or a unit to which the party belongs or any other citizen approved by the people's court may be appointed as the party's agent ad litem.Article 59 When a person appoints another to act on his behalf in litigation, he must submit to the people's court a power of attorney bearing his signature or seal.The power of attorney must specify the matters entrusted and the powers conferred. An agent ad litem must obtain special powers from his principal to admit, waive or modify claims, or tocompromise or to file a counterclaim or an appeal.A power of attorney mailed or delivered through others by a citizen of the People's Republic of China residing abroad must be certified by the Chinese embassy or consulate accredited to that country. If there is no Chinese embassy or consulate in that country, the power of attorney must be certified by an embassy or a consulate of a third country accredited to that country that has diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China, and then transmitted for authentication to the embassy or consulate of the People's Republic of China accredited to that third country, or it must be certified by a local patriotic overseas Chinese organization.Article 60 A party to an action shall inform the people's court in writing if he changes or revokes the powers of an agent ad litem, and the court shall notify the other party of the change or revocation. Article 61 A lawyer who serves as an agent ad litem and other agents ad litem shall have the right to investigate and collect evidence, and may have access to materials pertaining to the case. The scope of and rules for consulting materials pertaining to the case shall be specified by the Supreme People's Court.Article 62 In a divorce case in which the parties to the action have been represented by their agents ad litem, the parties themselves shall still appear in court in person, unless they are incapable of expressing their own will. A party who is truly unable to appear in court due to a special reason shall submit his views in writing to the people's court.Chapter VI EvidenceArticle 63 Evidence shall be classified as follows:(1) documentary evidence;(2) material evidence;(3) audiovisual material;(4) testimony of witnesses;(5) statements of the parties;(6) expert conclusions; and(7) records of inspection.The abovementioned evidence must be verified before it can be taken as a basis for ascertaining a fact.Article 64 It is the duty of a party to an action to provide evidence in support of his allegations.If, for objective reasons, a party and his agent ad litem are unable to collect the evidence by themselves or if the people's court considers the evidence necessary for the trial of the case, the people's court shall investigate and collect it.The people's court shall, in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the law, examine and verify evidence comprehensively and objectively.Article 65 The people's court shall have the right to make investigation and collect evidence from the relevant units or individuals; such units or individuals may not refuse to provide information and evidence.The people's court shall verify the authenticity, examine and determine the validity of the certifying documents provided by the relevant units or individuals.Article 66Evidence shall be presented in court and cross-examined by the parties concerned. But evidence that involves State secrets, trade secrets and personal privacy shall be kept confidential. If it needs to be presented in court, such evidence shall not be presented in an open court session. Article 67The people's court shall take the acts, facts and documents legalized by notarization according to legal procedures as the basis for ascertaining facts, unless there is evidence to the contrary sufficient to invalidate the notarization.Article 68 Any document submitted as evidence must be the original. Material evidence must also be original. If it is truly difficult to present the original document or thing, then reproductions, photographs, duplicates or extracts of the original may be submitted.If a document in a foreign language is submitted as evidence, a Chinese translation must be appended.Article 69 The people's court shall verify audio-visual materials and determine after their。