在跨境商事纠纷领域，尤其是中小规模工程合作、国际贸易尾款结算等场景中，企业常因对程序规则的疏忽陷入被动局面。正如某建筑服务公司与工程承包企业的框架合同纠纷案例所示：双方基于长期合作签订框架协议，为简化流程未约定具体合同金额与验收结算条款，仅约定 “具体结算金额以双方书面确认的验收结果为准”。

不过在最近一笔工程款结算时，承包企业突然以 “资金紧张”“工程验收不合格” 为由拖欠款项，建筑公司无奈提起诉讼。庭审中，我方律师团队按要求携带全套诉讼材料（包括跨境工程阶段性验收单、双方沟通记录等）出席，对方亦委托律师应诉。但庭审进行中，律师团队突然发现书记员在庭审笔录中擅自添加 “小额程序” 表述 —— 这一细节瞬间引发警惕，因小额诉讼程序的适用将直接影响企业后续权利救济，尤其涉跨境因素时，程序选择失误可能导致权益难以挽回。对企业法律顾问和高管而言，明晰小额诉讼程序的适用条件、法律后果及涉外场景的特殊风险，是避免程序陷阱、保障核心权益的关键前提。

一、小额诉讼程序的适用条件：国内标准与涉外适配

小额诉讼程序是我国《民事诉讼法》规定的 “简易程序的特殊形态”，其立法初衷是高效解决标的额较小、实际清晰的金钱给付纠纷，降低当事人诉讼成本，但该程序的适用需严格满足法定条件，涉外案件因涉及跨境证据、境外当事人等特殊因素，适用标准更需精准界定，不可一概而论。

从国内法定条件来看，根据《民事诉讼法》第 165 条及《最高人民法院关于适用 <中华人民共和国民事诉讼法> 的解释》第 271 条至第 275 条，适用小额诉讼程序需同时满足三项核心要求：其一，案件类型限定为金钱给付纠纷，排除人身关系（如涉外婚姻、亲子关系）、财产确权（如跨境股权确权、知识产权权属争议）、解除合同等非金钱争议 —— 前述建筑工程纠纷中，若原告仅主张 “支付拖欠工程款”，属于典型的金钱给付请求，具备适用小额程序的基础；但如果原告同时主张 “确认结算条款效力” 或 “解除框架合同”，则因包含非金钱请求，不得适用。

其二，标的额需低于本省、自治区、直辖市上年度就业人员平均工资的 30% ，以 2023 年广东省为例，城镇非私营单位就业人员年均工资约 12.7 万元，据此计算小额程序标的额门槛约为 3.81 万元，且该标的额需 “明确且无争议”—— 若框架合同未约定固定金额，需提供双方此前签字确认的结算单、对账记录（如跨境工程的月度进度款确认函）等，证明标的额已明确；若双方对结算金额存在实质性争议（如被告主张工程存在扣款项），则标的额未固定，不符合适用条件。

其三，案件实际清楚、权利义务关系明确，即无需复杂取证或专业鉴定，例如原告能提供被告盖章的结算单、跨境银行转账凭证（如 SWIFT 汇款记录），被告仅以 “资金紧张” 抗辩，无证据反驳结算金额；若案件涉及 “工程质量是否合格” 的专业鉴定（如需委托境外工程监理机构出具检测报告），或关键证据需通过国际司法协助调取（如境外供应商的材料合格证明），则因实际复杂，法院不得适用小额程序。

从涉外场景适配性来看，小额诉讼程序的适用需额外考量跨境因素对程序效率的影响，实践中法院会审慎评估两点：一是证据获取与质证的复杂性，若关键证据（如境外工程师的证言、国外第三方检测机构的报告）需经过翻译、公证认证（如依据《海牙取证公约》进行证据传递），或需协调外籍证人出庭，程序耗时较长，与小额程序 “1 个月内审结” 的要求相悖，法院一般会选择普通简易程序而非小额程序；二是境外当事人的程序知情权与参与度，若被告为境外企业（如注册于香港、新加坡的工程公司），需确保其通过合法方式（如境外使领馆送达、跨境电子送达）知晓小额程序 “一审终审” 的后果，若存在送达障碍（如境外企业地址不明），或境外当事人明确提出 “需充分时间准备答辩”，法院不会强行适用小额程序。

例如，某中港工程尾款纠纷中，原告主张 3.5 万元工程款，虽标的额低于广东地区门槛，但因被告为香港企业，关键结算单需经香港公证机构认证，且被告提出 “需聘请香港律师协助答辩”，法院最终决定适用普通简易程序，给予双方 15 天举证期，保障境外当事人的程序权利。

二、同意适用小额诉讼程序的法律后果：风险远超 “不能上诉”

企业若未审慎审查庭审笔录，误同意或默认适用小额诉讼程序，将面临 “程序权利受限 + 实体救济困难” 的双重风险，而涉外案件因涉及跨境执行、境外法院对程序公正性的审查，这些风险被进一步放大，可能导致企业赢了官司却无法实现权益。

最核心且影响最深远的后果是一审终审，彻底丧失上诉权。根据《民事诉讼法》第 165 条，小额诉讼案件的判决、裁定一经作出即发生法律效力，当事人无权通过上诉程序纠正一审可能存在的错误（如实际认定偏差、法律适用错误、关键证据遗漏）。这对涉外企业的冲击尤为显著：若一审判决存在瑕疵（如未采纳经公证认证的跨境结算证据，或错误适用国际贸易术语解释通则），企业只能通过 “再审” 程序寻求救济，但再审的启动门槛远高于上诉 —— 需证明 “有新的证据足以推翻原判决”“原判决认定实际的主要证据是伪造的” 或 “审判程序严重违法” 等严格条件，且再审审查周期长达 3-6 个月，部分复杂涉外案件甚至超过 1 年。

更关键的是，再审期间若企业需向境外法院申请承认与执行判决（如被执行人在欧盟、美国有资产），尽管一审终审的判决具备 “终局性”，但部分国家的法院会以 “缺乏上诉纠错环节” 为由质疑程序公正性，延缓执行进程。例如，某中德贸易小额纠纷中，一审法院未采纳德国供应商提供的经公证送货单（因未及时翻译中文版本），判决中方企业胜诉，德国供应商因小额程序无法上诉，只能申请再审；期间中方企业向德国慕尼黑法院申请执行判决，德国法院以 “判决可能存在证据遗漏” 为由，暂缓审查，导致货款追索延迟 1 年，额外产生律师费、翻译费等成本。

其次是程序高度简化，企业举证与答辩时间被大幅压缩。根据《民事诉讼法司法解释》第 277 条，小额诉讼程序的举证期一般不超过 7 日，庭审流程也会简化（如合并法庭调查与辩论环节，甚至采用书面审理方式），这对需处理跨境证据的企业极为不利。涉外企业往往需要将境外证据（如工程质量检测报告、海外物流单据）翻译成中文，委托当地公证机构认证，或协调境外业务人员提供补充说明，短时间内难以完成这些工作，极易因 “举证不能” 或 “证据形式不符合要求” 承担败诉风险。

例如，某跨境工程纠纷中，原告为马来西亚建筑公司，主张被告支付 2.8 万元工程款，并提交了马来西亚工程监理出具的验收合格报告，但因小额程序举证期仅 5 日，未能及时将报告翻译成中文并办理中国驻马来西亚使领馆认证，法院以 “证据形式不符合要求” 为由未采纳该报告，最终判决原告败诉，马来西亚公司虽可申请再审，但已错过工程款项的最佳追索时机。

此外，判决在跨境执行中可能面临特殊障碍。尽管《纽约公约》明确认可一审终审判决的执行力，但部分国家（如法国、意大利、西班牙）的法院在审查外国判决时，会特别关注 “当事人是否获得充分的辩护机会”。若小额程序中企业因举证期过短、未充分参与质证，或法院未给予合理时间回应对方主张，境外法院可能以 “程序不公” 为由拒绝承认与执行。

例如，某中意小额货款纠纷中，中方企业在小额程序中仅用 3 天就完成庭审，意大利买方因未收到充分举证通知，未能提交 “货物质量不合格” 的证据，一审判决中方胜诉；但当中方向意大利米兰法院申请执行时，意大利法院审查发现 “买方举证期仅 4 日，且未收到中文证据的翻译件”，依据《意大利民事诉讼法典》第 796 条，以 “程序未保障当事人充分辩护权” 为由，驳回了执行申请，中方企业不得不重新在意大利提起诉讼，耗时 2 年才追回货款，成本增加近 10 倍。

三、法院 “默认适用” 小额诉讼程序的缘由：效率导向下的企业风险点

实践中，法院主动 “默认适用” 小额诉讼程序的情况并不常见，多数源于 “结案效率考核压力 + 对案件复杂性误判”，而涉外案件的默认适用，还可能因法官对跨境因素的忽视，导致 “程序突袭”，企业若未及时发现并提出异议，将陷入被动。

首要缘由是法院面临严峻的结案效率考核压力。基层法院（尤其是涉外案件聚焦的法院，如深圳前海法院、上海浦东法院、广州南沙法院）每年需处理大量案件，而小额诉讼程序的审理周期一般不超过 1 个月，远短于普通简易程序（3 个月）和普通程序（6 个月），是法院提升 “结案率”“审限内结案率” 等考核指标的重大手段。

部分法官在案件标的额接近门槛、表面实际清晰时（如原告仅主张小额货款，被告未提出复杂抗辩），可能在当事人未明确同意的情况下，默认将案件归入小额程序，甚至由书记员在笔录中直接标注 “适用小额诉讼程序”，未单独征求双方意见。例如，前述建筑工程纠纷中，法院可能因 “3 万元工程款标的额较低”“原告提交了结算单”，忽视 “框架合同无固定金额、涉及工程验收争议” 的潜在复杂性，以及 “被告可能提出质量抗辩” 的可能性，为追求快速结案而默认适用小额程序，却未思考企业后续可能涉及的跨境结算连锁争议。

其次是法官对涉外案件的复杂性评估不足。部分法官可能存在 “小额标的额 = 案件简单” 的认知误区，未充分考量跨境案件的特殊难点：一是跨境证据的处理难度，如境外证据的翻译、公证认证流程耗时较长，远超小额程序的举证期；二是境外当事人的程序适应性，如外籍当事人可能不熟悉中国 “一审终审” 制度，需要更多时间理解程序后果；三是法律适用的复杂性，涉外案件可能涉及国际条约（如《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》）、外国法律的适用，需进行法律查明，无法通过小额程序快速审结。

例如，某涉新加坡工程尾款纠纷中，原告主张 2.8 万元工程款，标的额低于当地门槛，法官默认适用小额程序，但审理中发现被告为新加坡企业，需通过《海牙送达公约》送达文书，仅送达就耗时 20 天，远超小额程序的审限；且双方对 “FOB 还是 CIF 术语下的风险划分” 存在争议，需查明新加坡相关法律规定，最终法院不得不将程序转为普通简易程序，反而导致案件拖延 2 个月，违背了 “高效” 的初衷。

还有一个易被企业忽视的缘由是庭审笔录审核的形式化与律师的疏忽。法院书记员在庭审结束后，可能因操作习惯或 “配合法官结案需求”，在笔录中默认勾选 “适用小额诉讼程序” 选项，而部分企业律师可能因庭审后需处理其他事务（如与境外当事人同步庭审情况、整理证据材料），未仔细审阅笔录内容即签字确认，导致 “当事人认可适用小额程序” 的法律后果。

尤其涉外案件中，律师可能需要同步翻译庭审内容、解答境外当事人的疑问，精力分散，更易遗漏笔录中的程序标注错误，待发现时已无法修改 —— 根据《民事诉讼法》相关规定，庭审笔录经双方签字后即具有法律效力，除非能证明 “书记员擅自添加内容且存在欺诈”，否则难以推翻。例如，某涉美贸易纠纷中，中方律师庭审后因急于与美国客户沟通，未核对笔录即签字，后发现笔录中被添加 “双方同意适用小额程序”，虽向法院提出异议，但因无法提供证据证明是书记员擅自添加，异议被驳回，最终丧失上诉权。

四、企业应对策略：从 “庭审警惕” 到 “事前防范”（涉外专项指引）

针对小额诉讼程序的潜在风险，尤其是涉外案件中程序选择对跨境权益的影响，企业法律顾问和高管需建立 “事前合同约定 + 事中庭审核查 + 事后及时救济” 的全流程应对体系，将程序风险管控嵌入跨境业务的各个环节。

1. 事前：在跨境合同中明确排除小额程序适用，提前锁定程序权利

对于长期合作的框架合同（如跨境工程、国际贸易框架协议），企业应在争议解决条款中预设 “程序选择条款”，明确约定 “双方一致同意，因本合同产生的任何纠纷，无论标的额大小，均不适用《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》规定的小额诉讼程序，案件审理适用普通简易程序或普通程序，当事人有权依法提起上诉”。若合同相对方为境外企业，需在条款中同时列明小额程序的法律后果（如 “一审终审、无上诉权”），由双方签字确认，避免后续争议。

例如，中德工程合作合同中可约定：“凡因本合同引起的工程款支付、验收争议，双方确认不适用小额诉讼程序；案件由工程所在地有管辖权的人民法院适用普通简易程序审理，举证期不少于 15 日，双方均有权就一审判决提起上诉。” 此外，对于单次小额交易（如低于 5 万元的跨境采购），可在订单、报价单中补充 “争议解决程序约定”，避免因标的额小被默认适用小额程序。

2. 事中：庭审后第一时间核查笔录，发现问题当场提出异议

庭审结束后，企业律师应优先审阅庭审笔录，重点关注 “案件适用程序” 部分，检查是否存在 “擅自添加小额程序”“未记录当事人对程序的异议” 等情况。若发现问题，需当场向法官、书记员提出书面异议，要求删除或修改相关表述，并在修改处签字确认；若法官以 “标的额符合要求” 为由坚持适用，律师应明确提交《不适用小额诉讼程序的申请书》，附 “案件涉及跨境证据需公证认证”“境外当事人需充分举证时间” 等理由，必要时可引用类似案例（如法院此前对同类涉外案件适用普通程序的判例）支持主张。

例如，前述建筑工程纠纷中，我方律师发现笔录添加 “小额程序” 后，立即向法官指出：“本案涉及工程验收争议，需委托第三方机构鉴定，且被告可能提出质量抗辩，不符合小额程序‘实际清楚’的要求；同时，原告后续可能需向被告境外关联公司追索，一审终审不利于权益保障。” 最终法官同意删除相关表述，明确适用普通简易程序。此外，涉外案件中，若律师需与境外当事人沟通，可申请法院 “延迟 1 个工作日签字确认笔录”，待境外当事人核实程序选择后再提交，避免因语言、时差问题导致误判。

3. 事后：若误适用小额程序，分阶段启动救济措施，降低损失

若企业因疏忽未发现笔录错误，导致案件适用小额程序，需根据案件进展分情况应对：

判决作出前：立即向法院提交《程序异议申请书》，详细说明 “案件不符合小额程序适用条件” 的理由（如 “关键证据需境外公证，举证期不足”“涉及跨境法律适用，需法律查明”），并附相关证明材料（如境外公证机构的受理通知、法律查明机构的委托合同），请求法院将程序转为普通简易程序。实践中，若法院尚未作出判决，且异议理由充分，多数会同意转换程序，保障企业的举证与上诉权。

判决作出后：若判决已生效，企业需评估是否符合再审条件 —— 若存在 “一审未采纳经公证的跨境证据”“审判组织不合法” 等情形，应在判决生效后 6 个月内，向原审法院或其上一级法院提交《再审申请书》，附新证据（如补充公证的境外结算单）或程序违法的证据（如送达记录显示境外当事人未收到开庭通知），争取启动再审；同时，若需向境外法院申请执行，可在再审期间向境外法院说明 “案件已启动再审程序”，请求暂缓审查，避免因判决可能被撤销导致执行回转困难。例如，某中澳小额纠纷中，中方企业在判决生效后发现 “一审未采纳澳大利亚海关的出口报关单”，立即申请再审并向澳大利亚法院说明情况，澳大利亚法院同意暂缓执行审查，待再审改判后再推进执行，为中方挽回了 2.6 万元货款损失。

The Application Boundaries of Small Claims Procedure and Corporate Response Strategies (Cross-Border Perspective)

In the field of cross-border commercial disputes, particularly in scenarios such as small-to-medium-sized engineering cooperation and international trade balance settlement, enterprises often fall into passive situations due to negligence of procedural rules. A typical example is the framework contract dispute between a construction service company and an engineering contractor: based on their long-term cooperation, the two parties signed a framework agreement, simplifying procedures by not specifying the exact contract amount or acceptance/settlement clauses—only agreeing that “the specific settlement amount shall be subject to the written confirmation of acceptance results by both parties.”

However, during the settlement of the latest project payment, the contracting enterprise suddenly delayed payment on the grounds of “cash flow shortages” and “substandard project acceptance,” forcing the construction company to initiate litigation. During the trial, our legal team attended with a complete set of litigation materials (including phased acceptance documents for cross-border projects and communication records between the two parties), and the defendant also retained legal counsel. Nevertheless, during the proceedings, the team suddenly noticed that the court clerk had added the phrase “small claims procedure” to the trial transcript without authorization—a detail that immediately triggered alertness.

The application of small claims procedure directly impacts the enterprise’s subsequent rights remedy, and in cross-border contexts, incorrect procedural choices may lead to irreversible losses of rights.

For in-house counsel and executives, understanding the application conditions, legal consequences, and cross-border-specific risks of small claims procedure is a critical prerequisite for avoiding procedural traps and safeguarding core interests. ## I. Application Conditions for Small Claims Procedure: Domestic Standards and Cross-Border Adaptation Small claims procedure, defined as a “special form of summary procedure” under China’s Civil Procedure Law, is legislatively intended to efficiently resolve monetary payment disputes with small subject amounts and clear facts, reducing litigation costs for parties.

However, its application must strictly meet statutory requirements, and cross-border cases—due to factors such as cross-border evidence and foreign parties—involve more nuanced application standards that cannot be generalized. From the perspective of domestic statutory conditions, Articles 165 of the *Civil Procedure Law* and Articles 271 to 275 of the Supreme People’s Court Interpretation on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China stipulate three core prerequisites for applying small claims procedure:

First, the case type is limited to monetary payment disputes, excluding non-monetary claims such as personal relations (e.g., cross-border marriage, parent-child relations), property confirmation (e.g., cross-border equity verification, intellectual property ownership disputes), and contract termination.

In the aforementioned construction dispute, if the plaintiff only claims “payment of arrears in project funds,” it qualifies as a typical monetary claim and meets the basic conditions for small claims procedure; however, if the plaintiff simultaneously claims “confirmation of the validity of settlement clauses” or “termination of the framework contract,” the inclusion of non-monetary claims disqualifies the case from small claims procedure. Second, the subject amount must be less than 30% of the average annual salary of employees in the province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government in the previous year.

Taking Guangdong Province in 2023 as an example, the average annual salary of employees in urban non-private units was approximately RMB 127,000, setting the threshold for small claims procedure at around RMB 38,100.

Moreover, this amount must be “clear and undisputed”: for framework contracts without a fixed amount, supporting documents such as mutually signed settlement statements and reconciliation records (e.g., monthly progress payment confirmation letters for cross-border projects) must be provided to prove the amount’s clarity; if the parties have substantive disputes over the settlement amount (e.g., the defendant claims deductions for project defects), the amount remains unconfirmed, failing to meet the application criteria. Third, the case facts are clear and the legal relationship of rights and obligations is definite, meaning no complex evidence collection or professional appraisal is required.

For instance, if the plaintiff can provide a settlement statement sealed by the defendant and cross-border bank transfer records (e.g., SWIFT remittance slips), and the defendant only argues “cash flow shortages” without evidence to refute the settlement amount, the procedure is applicable.

Conversely, if the case involves professional appraisal of “project quality compliance” (e.g., requiring inspection reports from overseas engineering supervision institutions) or key evidence that must be obtained through international judicial assistance (e.g., material qualification certificates from overseas suppliers), the factual complexity disqualifies it from small claims procedure. From the perspective of cross-border adaptability, the application of small claims procedure requires additional consideration of how cross-border factors affect procedural efficiency. In practice, courts carefully evaluate two aspects:

First, the complexity of evidence acquisition and cross-examination. If key evidence (e.g., testimonies from overseas engineers, reports from foreign third-party testing institutions) requires translation, notarization, and authentication (e.g., evidence transmission under the Hague Evidence Convention), or coordination for foreign witnesses to appear in court, the process becomes time-consuming—conflicting with the “1-month trial conclusion” requirement of small claims procedure.

Courts will typically opt for ordinary summary procedure instead. Second, overseas parties’ awareness of procedural rights and participation. If the defendant is an overseas enterprise (e.g., an engineering company registered in Hong Kong or Singapore), it must be informed of the “final and binding first-instance judgment” consequence of small claims procedure through lawful channels (e.g., service via overseas embassies/consulates, cross-border electronic service).

If service obstacles exist (e.g., unknown address of the overseas enterprise) or the overseas party explicitly requests “sufficient time to prepare a defense,” the court will not impose small claims procedure. For example, in a Sino-Hong Kong project balance dispute, the plaintiff claimed RMB 35,000—below Guangdong’s threshold—but the court ultimately chose ordinary summary procedure. This decision considered that the defendant was a Hong Kong enterprise (requiring Hong Kong notarial authentication for key settlement documents) and the defendant’s request to “retain Hong Kong lawyers for defense assistance,” granting both parties a 15-day evidence submission period to protect the overseas party’s procedural rights.

II. Legal Consequences of Agreeing to Small Claims Procedure: Risks Beyond “No Right to Appeal” If an enterprise fails to carefully review the trial transcript and inadvertently agrees to or admit the application of small claims procedure, it will face dual risks of “restricted procedural rights and difficult substantive remedies.”

In cross-border cases, these risks are further amplified due to cross-border enforcement and foreign courts’ review of procedural fairness, potentially leaving enterprises with a winning judgment but no way to enforce it. The core and most far-reaching consequence is final and binding first-instance judgment, resulting in the complete loss of the right to appeal**. Pursuant to Article 165 of the Civil Procedure Law, judgments and rulings in small claims cases take effect immediately upon issuance, and parties have no right to appeal to correct potential errors in the first instance (e.g., factual misjudgments, incorrect application of law, or omission of key evidence).

This impact is particularly severe for cross-border enterprises: if the first-instance judgment is flawed (e.g., failing to admit notarized cross-border settlement evidence or misapplying Incoterms), the enterprise can only seek remedy through “retrial”—a process with far higher thresholds than appeal. Retrial requires proving strict conditions such as “new evidence sufficient to reverse the original judgment,” “forgery of key evidence in the original judgment,” or “serious violations of trial procedures,” with a review period of 3–6 months (or even over a year for complex cross-border cases).

More critically, if the enterprise needs to apply to a foreign court for recognition and enforcement of the judgment during the retrial period (e.g., if the debtor has assets in the EU or the U.S.), while the final first-instance judgment is “final,” courts in some countries may question its procedural fairness due to the “lack of an appellate remedy,” delaying enforcement. For example, in a Sino-German small-value trade dispute, the first-instance court rejected a German supplier’s notarized delivery note (due to delayed Chinese translation) and ruled in favor of the Chinese enterprise. Unable to appeal due to small claims procedure, the German supplier could only apply for retrial.

Meanwhile, when the Chinese enterprise applied to the Munich Court for enforcement, the German court suspended review on the grounds of “potential evidence omission in the judgment,” delaying payment recovery by 1 year and incurring additional costs for legal fees and translation. Second, highly simplified procedures drastically compress the enterprise’s time for evidence submission and defense. According to Article 277 of the Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law, the evidence submission period for small claims procedure is usually no more than 7 days, and trial procedures are streamlined (e.g., merging court investigation and debate, or even adopting written trials).

This is extremely disadvantageous for enterprises dealing with cross-border evidence, which often requires translating overseas evidence (e.g., engineering quality inspection reports, overseas logistics documents) into Chinese, commissioning local notarial authentication, or coordinating with overseas staff to provide supplementary explanations. Completing these tasks within a short timeframe is difficult, increasing the risk of losing the case due to “failure to present evidence” or “non-compliant evidence format.”

For example, in a cross-border engineering dispute, the plaintiff—a Malaysian construction company—claimed RMB 28,000 in project funds and submitted an acceptance certificate issued by a Malaysian engineering supervisor. However, due to the 5-day evidence submission period under small claims procedure, it failed to translate the certificate into Chinese and obtain authentication from the Chinese Embassy in Malaysia in time. The court rejected the evidence on the grounds of “non-compliant format,” ruling against the plaintiff. Although the Malaysian company could apply for retrial, it had already missed the optimal window for recovering project funds. Additionally, cross-border enforcement of judgments may face unique obstacles.

While the New York Convention explicitly recognizes the enforceability of final first-instance judgments, courts in some countries (e.g., France, Italy, Spain) pay special attention to “whether parties were granted sufficient opportunities to defend themselves” when reviewing foreign judgments. If an enterprise fails to fully present evidence or participate in cross-examination due to the shortened evidence period in small claims procedure, or if the court fails to provide a reasonable timeframe to respond to the opposing party’s claims, foreign courts may refuse recognition and enforcement on the grounds of “procedural unfairness.” For example, in a Sino-Italian small-value payment dispute, the Chinese enterprise completed the trial in just 3 days under small claims procedure.

The Italian buyer, having not received sufficient notice to present evidence, failed to submit proof of “substandard goods,” resulting in a first-instance judgment in favor of the Chinese enterprise. However, when the Chinese enterprise applied to the Milan Court for enforcement, the Italian court, citing Article 796 of the *Italian Code of Civil Procedure*, rejected the application on the grounds that “the procedure failed to protect the party’s right to adequate defense.” The Chinese enterprise had to file a new lawsuit in Italy, taking 2 years to recover the payment and incurring costs nearly 10 times the original claim amount.

III. Reasons for Courts “Impliedly Applying” Small Claims Procedure:

Corporate Risks Under Efficiency Orientation

In practice, courts rarely “impliedly apply” small claims procedure on their own initiative; most cases result from “pressure to meet case closure efficiency targets and misjudgment of case complexity.” In cross-border cases, implied application may also stem from judges’ neglect of cross-border factors, leading to “procedural surprises.” If enterprises fail to detect and object in a timely manner, they will be caught in a passive position. The primary reason is severe pressure on courts to meet case closure efficiency targets. Grassroots courts (especially those handling a high volume of cross-border cases, such as Shenzhen Qianhai Court, Shanghai Pudong Court, and Guangzhou Nansha Court) process numerous cases annually.

The trial period for small claims procedure is usually no more than 1 month—far shorter than ordinary summary procedure (3 months) or ordinary procedure (6 months)—making it a key tool for courts to improve assessment indicators such as “case closure rate” and “on-time closure rate.” When a case’s subject amount is close to the threshold and the facts seem clear on the surface (e.g., the plaintiff only claims a small payment, and the defendant raises no complex defenses), some judges may implicitly classify it as a small claims case without explicit party consent. In some cases, clerks may even directly mark “application of small claims procedure” in the transcript without separately consulting the parties.

For example, in the aforementioned construction dispute, the court may have overlooked the “lack of a fixed amount in the framework contract and potential disputes over project acceptance” and the “defendant’s possible quality defenses,” and impliedly applied small claims procedure solely because the “RMB 30,000 project fund claim was small.” This neglect failed to consider potential subsequent cross-border settlement disputes for the enterprise. Second, judges’ insufficient assessment of the complexity of cross-border cases.

Some judges may hold the misconception that “small subject amount = simple case,” failing to fully consider the unique challenges of cross-border cases: first, the difficulty of handling cross-border evidence (e.g., translation, notarization, and authentication of overseas evidence takes longer than the evidence submission period for small claims procedure); second, overseas parties’ adaptability to procedures (e.g., foreign parties may be unfamiliar with China’s “final first-instance” system and require more time to understand procedural consequences); third, the complexity of applicable law (cross-border cases may involve international treaties such as the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods or the application of foreign law, requiring legal research that cannot be completed quickly under small claims procedure).

For example, in a Singapore-related project balance dispute, the plaintiff claimed RMB 28,000—below the local threshold—and the judge impliedly applied small claims procedure. However, during the trial, it was discovered that the defendant was a Singaporean enterprise (requiring service via the Hague Service Convention, which took 20 days alone) and the parties disputed “risk allocation under FOB or CIF terms” (needing research on Singaporean law). Ultimately, the court had to switch to ordinary summary procedure, delaying the case by 2 months and defeating the “efficiency” purpose. Another easily overlooked reason is formalized review of trial transcripts and lawyers’ negligence.

After the trial, court clerks may habitually check the “apply small claims procedure” box in the transcript due to operational routines or “cooperating with judges to meet closure targets.” Some corporate lawyers, however, may sign the transcript without careful review after the trial, as they need to handle other matters (e.g., synchronizing trial updates with overseas parties, organizing evidence materials)—resulting in the legal consequence of “party consent to small claims procedure.”

In cross-border cases, lawyers may be distracted by translating trial content and answering overseas parties’ questions, increasing the risk of missing procedural errors in the transcript. By the time the error is discovered, it may be irreversible: under relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Law, trial transcripts become legally binding once signed by both parties, and it is difficult to reverse them unless evidence of “unauthorized additions by the clerk with fraud” can be provided.

For example, in a Sino-U.S. trade dispute, the Chinese lawyer signed the transcript without review due to urgency to communicate with the U.S. client, only to later discover that “both parties agree to apply small claims procedure” had been added. Although an objection was filed with the court, it was rejected for lack of evidence proving unauthorized addition, ultimately resulting in the loss of the right to appeal.

IV. Corporate Response Strategies: From “Trial Alertness” to “Preventive Measures” (Cross-Border Guidelines) To mitigate the risks of small claims procedure—especially the impact of procedural choices on cross-border rights in international cases—in-house counsel and executives should establish a full-process response system covering “pre-contract agreement, in-trial verification, and post-trial remedy,” integrating procedural risk management into all stages of cross-border operations.

1. Pre-Contract: Explicitly Exclude Small Claims Procedure in Cross-Border Contracts to Lock in Procedural Rights in Advance For long-term framework contracts (e.g., cross-border engineering or international trade framework agreements), enterprises should include a “procedure selection clause” in the dispute resolution section, clearly stating: “Both parties agree that any dispute arising from this contract shall not be subject to the small claims procedure stipulated in China’s Civil Procedure Law, regardless of the claim amount. The case shall be heard by a competent people’s court at the project location using ordinary summary procedure or ordinary procedure, and both parties shall have the right to appeal in accordance with the law.”

For contracts with overseas counterparties, the clause should also specify the legal consequences of small claims procedure (e.g., “final first-instance judgment, no right to appeal”) and require signatures from both parties to avoid subsequent disputes.

For example, a Sino-German engineering cooperation contract could stipulate: “All disputes over project payment and acceptance arising from this contract shall not be subject to small claims procedure; the case shall be heard by a competent people’s court at the project location using ordinary summary procedure, with an evidence submission period of no less than 15 days, and both parties shall have the right to appeal against the first-instance judgment.” Additionally, for single small-value cross-border transactions (e.g., cross-border purchases below RMB 50,000), a “dispute resolution procedure clause” can be added to purchase orders or quotations to prevent implied application of small claims procedure due to the small amount.

2. In-Trial: Verify the Transcript Immediately After the Trial and Raise Objections on the Spot if Issues Are Found After the trial, corporate lawyers should prioritize reviewing the trial transcript, focusing on the “case application procedure” section to check for issues such as “unauthorized addition of small claims procedure” or “failure to record party objections to the procedure.”

If problems are identified, a written objection must be filed with the judge and clerk on the spot, requesting deletion or modification of the relevant content and signing the amended section to confirm. If the judge insists on application on the grounds of “meeting the amount threshold,” the lawyer should explicitly submit an *Application for Non-Application of Small Claims Procedure*, detailing reasons such as “key evidence requiring overseas notarization and authentication” or “overseas parties needing sufficient time to present evidence,” and cite similar cases (e.g., previous court decisions applying ordinary procedure to similar cross-border cases) to support the argument.

For example, in the aforementioned construction dispute, after discovering the addition of “small claims procedure” in the transcript, our lawyer immediately pointed out to the judge: “This case involves disputes over project acceptance requiring third-party appraisal, and the defendant may raise quality defenses—failing to meet the ‘clear facts’ requirement for small claims procedure. Additionally, the plaintiff may need to pursue recovery from the defendant’s overseas affiliated companies, making final first-instance judgment unfavorable for rights protection.”

The judge ultimately agreed to delete the relevant content and explicitly applied ordinary summary procedure. Furthermore, in cross-border cases, if the lawyer needs to communicate with the overseas party, an application can be made to the court to “delay signing the transcript by 1 working day” to allow the overseas party to verify the procedure choice before submission, avoiding misjudgment due to language or time zone issues.

3. Post-Trial: Launch Phased Remedies if Small Claims Procedure Is Misapplied to Minimize Losses If an enterprise overlooks transcript errors and the case is misapplied to small claims procedure, responses should be tailored to the case progress: -Before Judgment Issuance: Immediately submit an *Application for Procedural Objection* to the court, detailing reasons why “the case does not meet the application conditions for small claims procedure” (e.g., “key evidence requiring overseas notarization, insufficient evidence submission period” or “involving cross-border application of law requiring legal research”), and attach supporting materials (e.g., acceptance notices from overseas notarial institutions, commission contracts with legal research institutions).

Request the court to convert the procedure to ordinary summary procedure. In practice, if the court has not yet issued a judgment and the objection reasons are sufficient, most will agree to the conversion to protect the enterprise’s evidence submission and appeal rights. – After Judgment Issuance: If the judgment has taken effect, the enterprise should assess whether it meets the retrial conditions.

If there are grounds such as “the first-instance court failing to admit notarized cross-border evidence” or “illegal composition of the trial team,” a *Retrial Application* should be submitted to the original court or its superior court within 6 months of the judgment taking effect, accompanied by new evidence (e.g., supplementary notarized cross-border settlement statements) or evidence of procedural violations (e.g., service records showing the overseas party did not receive the trial notice).

If enforcement needs to be applied to a foreign court during the retrial period, the enterprise can inform the foreign court that “a retrial has been initiated” to request a suspension of review, avoiding difficulties in enforcement reversal if the judgment is later revoked. For example, in a Sino-Australian small-value dispute, after discovering that “the first-instance court failed to admit the Australian Customs export declaration,” the Chinese enterprise immediately applied for retrial and informed the Australian court of the situation. The Australian court agreed to suspend enforcement review and resumed the process only after the retrial reversed the original judgment, helping the Chinese enterprise recover RMB 26,000 in payment losses.

Lawyer MinDan