"Ding!" The notification sound from a text message indicated that the applicant, HE, had received the final installment of the settlement payment from the respondent, LIAO, marking the completion of the settlement agreement and the successful resolution of this complex time charter dispute. The judge in charge of the case finally felt relieved, remarking, "After nearly a year of uncertainty where the settlement process could have collapsed at any moment, it's all thanks to the coordination between adjudication and enforcement!"

This case began on August 2, 2021, when HE and LIAO signed a charter party for the transport of goods by ship. Under the contract, LIAO shall charter the vessel "Tianli 933" from HE at a monthly rent of RMB 230,000, with the charter period running from August 4, 2021, to January 15, 2022, and in the event of a breach by either party, a penalty of RMB 30,000 shall be paid to the non-breaching party.

Following the execution of the contract, LIAO paid a deposit of RMB 30,000 and part of the rent, and HE delivered the vessel to LIAO on the same day.

However, less than six months after the contract was signed, the cooperation encountered difficulties.

On January 29, 2022, in a WeChat conversation, LIAO acknowledged that, after deducting the deposit, he still owed RMB 224,000 in rent. Due to a dispute arising from contract performance, HE filed a lawsuit with the Guangzhou Maritime Court (GZMC), requesting that LIAO be ordered to immediately pay the outstanding rent of RMB 254,000 plus interest, as well as a penalty of RMB 30,000.

LIAO did not respond to the lawsuit nor did he submit any evidence.

After the trial, the GZMC ruled that the defendant, LIAO, should pay the plaintiff, HE, the outstanding rent of RMB 224,000 plus interest, as well as the penalty of RMB 30,000.

When the judgment became final and entered the compulsory enforcement stage, LIAO claimed that he had not received the final judgment and argued that there were errors in the fact-finding. He applied for a retrial and requested a suspension of the auction of his only residence, while also filing objections to the enforcement.

To resolve the dispute effectively, the presiding judge and the enforcement judge worked together, meeting with LIAO to explain the law and clarify his doubts, showing him the entire process of service in the lawsuit. They subsequently obtained the delivery records from the judicial delivery service company and informed LIAO. However, LIAO remained firm in his request and maintained a strong stance.

What was the hidden truth behind this?

Through multiple rounds of communication, the two judges calmed LIAO's emotions and gained insight into his true thoughts and the difficulties he was facing: the death of his father, pandemic lockdowns, lack of a stable income, and his wife's distress over their only property being seized by the court and set for auction. Moreover, LIAO was deeply concerned about the penalty clause in the judgment and was planning to delay enforcement through a retrial or by raising enforcement objections.

In response, the presiding judge patiently explained the relevant laws, citing similar cases from past rulings and legal databases. LIAO began to understand his legal responsibilities and the risks associated with his business decisions. The judges acknowledged LIAO's difficulties and reached out to the applicant, HE, to actively facilitate an enforcement settlement between the parties.

However, the case encountered another obstacle: HE was resistant to a settlement, citing significant financial pressure due to his loan for the vessel and his reluctance to make concessions.

The presiding judge and the enforcement judge worked together to explain the legal principles and reasoning behind a potential settlement. After multiple rounds of negotiation and communication, the parties finally reached an enforcement settlement under the court's supervision, with HE agreeing to waive part of LIAO's penalty. LIAO made the initial settlement payment of RMB 20,000 but then failed to make further payments as agreed. In December 2023, HE applied for compulsory enforcement to resume the case, and after another round of joint efforts to ensure compliance with the judgment and the re-initiation of the property auction process, LIAO settled the remaining amount on April 23 this year, and the case was finally closed in May.

In handling maritime enforcement cases, the GZMC, recognizing the strong specialization required, the high degree of social conflict involved, the complexity of legal relationships, and the numerous enforcement procedures, places great emphasis on multi-departmental coordination. The court effectively integrates adjudication and enforcement to overcome the limitations of isolated actions, maintaining a high-pressure stance on compulsory enforcement while also conducting thorough legal explanations and guidance for the parties involved. This approach resolves both the emotional and legal concerns of the parties. The GZMC also upholds the principle of "benevolent and civilized enforcement, making justice both powerful and warm", as it actively explores new methods of benevolent and civilized enforcement that highlight the "strength" and "warmth" of the judiciary to achieve unified political, social, and legal outcomes and ensure that the public feels fairness and justice in every judicial case.