Defendant lessee concluded a lease contract with Outsider East International Investment Limited. Later, Plaintiff lessor, Defendant lessee and Outsider concluded an agreement, in which Outsider transferred their rights, obligations and responsibilities under the lease contract to Plaintiff lessor. Defendant lessee also concluded 7 container leasing contracts with Plaintiff lessor, and in the agreement, it agreed that the contract would be governed by English law and all disputes arising from the contract would be resolved through arbitration in London. During the performance of the contract, there was a total loss of some containers. Lessee paid a portion of the rent in eight installments, but still owed the majority of the rent and did not pay DV value of the relevant container. In addition, as of August 31, 2016, a total of 11,548 containers were under lease under the involved agreement. However, as of March 31, 2017, Plaintiff lessor recovered 8,666 containers and the remaining 2,882 containers were not recovered, which was presumed to be a total loss. On September 6, 2016, Judge of the UK High Court issued an order requesting that no legal procedures be initiated or continued against the company or its assets, including arbitration. Plaintiff lessor applied for pre litigation property preservation and filed an action claiming Defendant lessee to pay overdue fee, corresponding interest, container DV value and preservation fee. The court held that (1) Plaintiff lessor had the right to file an action with a competent maritime court regarding the dispute in this case, as the English court ruled that Plaintiff lessor was unable to initiate arbitration in London according to the arbitration terms of the dispute, and the arbitration agreement could not be fulfilled. (2) This case should be governed by Chinese law. Even though Plaintiff lessor and Defendant lessee agreed that the agreement involved was subject to English law, Plaintiff lessor clearly stated in the trial that they were unable to provide relevant English law, and Defendant lessee did not submit any written materials regarding the application of English law. (3) The lease agreement is legal and valid. Defendant lessee should pay the rent and interest as agreed, and should pay the rent and return fee of 8,666 containers recovered by Plaintiff lessor from August 31, 2016 to March 31, 2017, as well as compensate Plaintiff lessor for DV value of the remaining 2,882 containers.