The trial court’s analysis was not only permissible in this case, but also in line with how Shagang presented its case. As an initial matter and addressing the first criticism, the Supreme Court held there is no “one size fits all approach” and the manner and order in which admissibility and weight of evidence are ruled upon is left to the discretion of the trial judge. Supreme Court attacked each and every criticism made by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal laid out the following four issues it had with the trial court’s ruling resulting in ordering the case to be reconsidered in a new trial: (1) the trial judge did not follow the logical steps to reach a proper evaluation of admissible evidence (2) the trial judge failed to weigh the admissibility of the confession evidence (3) the trial judge failed to take all evidence into account and (4) the trial judge failed to exclude irrelevant matters, mainly his doubt whether the confessions were obtained by torture. The court agreed with HNA when it held that since the trial court did not find on the balance of probabilities that the confessions were procured by torture, then the trial court found there to be no torture in this case. On appeal, the court took a binary approach to the evidence of torture and decided if an allegation that a statement was made as a result of torture has not been proved on the balance of probabilities, then a court estimating the weight to be given to the statement as hearsay evidence must entirely disregard the possibility that the statement was obtained through torture. The Court of Appeal disagreed with the trial court’s analysis and remanded the case back for redetermination. Since there was no evidence of bribery in this matter, the trial court expressed that it was not necessary to make a determination on the issue of torture. The trial court further held that evidence of torture could not be ruled out reducing the weight of the confessions as evidence of bribery. In 2016, the trial court ruled in favor of Shagang holding that bribery had not been proven on the balance of probabilities. In response to HNA’s defense, Shagang alleged the confessions were procured through torture making them inadmissible in a legal proceeding. HNA relied on confessions made to the Public Security Bureau by two HNA employees and a party working for Shagang as evidence of bribery. However, this charterparty was formed at the height of the chartering market in the People’s Republic of China. HNA’s theory was that without bribing Grand China, it would have been difficult to charter the vessel quickly. HNA based its defense that the charterparty was unenforceable due to evidence showing the charterparty was procured through bribery payments. Consequently, Shagang initiated this action against HNA to recover its losses. HNA, Grand China’s parent company, guaranteed the performance of the charterparty at issue.
In September 2010, Grand China defaulted on payments under the charterparty due to financial hardships following the 2008 crisis. The dispute at issue arose out of a 2008 charterparty between Shagang Shipping Company and Grand China Shipping Company Ltd. Supreme Court considered the issue over the weight of evidence of torture in an otherwise ordinary commercial case, Shagang v.