SINGAPORE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Koh Swee Yen, Joel Quek, Alessa Pang and Andre Soh, WongPartnership LLP
The Singapore courts have demonstrated their ability to grapple with complex legal concepts and issues beyond the domestic sphere. For example, in the case involving Laos and Sanum Investments ( Sanum Investments Ltd v Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic [2016] 5 SLR 536), the SGCA addressed a number of international law concepts, including the interpretation of treaties under the Vien - na Convention of the Law of Treaties (VCLT), as well as rules of evidence in international law such as the “criti - cal date” doctrine, which the SGCA considered to be the more appropriate principle in governing the admis - sibility of new evidence when the dispute concerned matters of public international law. In this regard, the SGCA held that the burden of proof was on Laos to prove a particular assertion by the evidence in exist - ence before the “critical date” (ie, the date on which the dispute was crystallised by the commencement of the arbitral proceedings) as the new evidence could be adduced only to confirm the pre-existing position. In 2017, the Kingdom of Lesotho brought an applica - tion in the Singapore courts to set aside a partial final award on jurisdiction and merits rendered by an ad hoc tribunal constituted under the auspices of the Per - manent Court of Arbitration. This was a notable case as it was the first time that the Singapore courts had to decide on an application to set aside an investor-State arbitral award on its merits. The award was ultimately set aside by the Singapore High Court, on the ground that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the dispute ( Kingdom of Lesotho v Swissbourgh Diamond Mines (Pty) Limited and Others [2019] 3 SLR 12), and this decision was upheld by the SGCA on appeal ( Swiss- bourgh Diamond Mines (Pty) Limited and v Kingdom of Lesotho [2019] 1 SLR 263). Since then, the Singapore courts have heard a stream of matters arising from the setting-aside/enforcement of investor-State arbitral awards. One such matter was the Republic of India’s application to set aside an order that was obtained by Deutsche Telekom AG permitting it to enforce an arbitral award arising from an India-Germany bilateral investment treaty ( The Republic of India v Deutsche Telekom AG [2024] 1 SLR 56). Among other things, the SGCA held that the doc - trine of transnational issue estoppel could be applied by a Singapore enforcement court when determin -
ing whether a preclusive effect should be accorded to a seat court’s prior decision as to the validity of the award. The SGCA also noted, in obiter dicta, that where transnational issue estoppel does not apply the courts may still have regard to the primacy principle – which provides that an enforcement court should accord primacy to a prior decision of the seat court – though the court still had to consider whether there were other factors that would diminish the weight to be placed on the decision of the seat court. The Singapore court had occasion to apply the prin - ciples relating to transnational issue estoppel in the recent decision of Hulley Enterprises Ltd and Others v The Russian Federation [2025] SGHC(I) 19, which concerned Russia’s application to set aside an order from the Singapore High Court, granting permission to the former majority shareholders of the Yukos Oil company to enforce three arbitral awards amounting to USD63 billion in damages and interest for breach - es under the Energy Charter Treaty. Russia asserted State immunity under Section 3 (1) of Singapore’s State Immunity Act 1979, arguing that it had not “agreed in writing” to arbitrate, which would otherwise invoke the exception to immunity under Section 11. The SICC rejected Russia’s claim, holding that it was precluded from denying an agreement to arbitrate due to transnational issue estoppel – citing the SGCA’s decision in Deutsche Telekom . The SICC confirmed that transnational issue estoppel was applicable to matters concerning claims of State immunity. In what has turned out to be a landmark year in Sin - gapore’s investment arbitration landscape, in March 2025 the SICC issued its decision in Republic of Korea v Mason Capital LP and Another and Another Matter [2025] 4 SLR 308, where it dismissed the Republic of Korea’s (ROK) application to set aside an award in favour of Mason Capital LP and Mason Manage - ment LLC (collectively, “Mason”) arising from alleged breaches of the Investment Chapter of the US-ROK Free Trade Agreement (FTA). Mason, a US-based investment fund, was a shareholder in Samsung C&T Corporation (“Samsung”). ROK’s National Pen - sion Fund (NPS) was Samsung’s largest shareholder. Mason alleged that ROK officials manipulated NPS’s exercise of its vote to approve the merger between Samsung and another company, which allegedly
731 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook