SINGAPORE Law and Practice Contributed by: Chou Sean Yu, Wendy Lin, Monica Chong Wan Yee and Frank Oh Sheng Loong, WongPartnership LLP
tion agreement (or a record of its content) and the duly authenticated original award (or duly certified copies of the above). Where the award is not in English, a duly certified translation in English must be provided. The affidavit must also state the name and the usual/ last known places of residence/business of the award creditor and award debtor, and, as the case may require, the extent to which the award has not been complied with at the date of the application (Order 48, Rule 6 (1) and (2) Rules of Court 2021 (ROC)). Once the formal requirements above are met, the court would grant permission to enforce. This must then be served on the award debtor (Order 48, Rule 6 (3) ROC). At the second stage, enforcement may be refused only if the award debtor applies to set aside the order granting permission to enforce on any of the exhaus - tive grounds set out in Section 31 (2) and (4) of the IAA (for arbitral awards made pursuant to an arbitra - tion agreement in the territory of a New York Conven - tion contracting state other than Singapore). These grounds mirror the grounds in Article V New York Con - vention and Article 36 ML. The court has no residual discretion to refuse enforcement of the award out - side these grounds ( South of England Protection and Indemnity Association ( Bermuda ) Ltd ( in liquidation ) v Pacmar Shipping Pte Ltd [2026] SGHC 8 at [32]). An application to resist enforcement must be brought within 14 days after service of the order granting per - mission to enforce on the award debtor (or within such other period as the court may fix where the order is to be served out of Singapore). The award must not be enforced until after the expiry of that period or, if the award debtor applies within that period to set aside the order, until after the application is finally disposed of (Order 48, Rule 6 (5) ROC). Where an award has been set aside by the court at the seat, the court may refuse to enforce the award under Section 31 (2)(f) IAA. The courts have generally considered that, where an award has been set aside by a foreign seat court, the enforcement court may be reluctant to recognise or enforce the award, as the contemplated erga omnes effect of a successful appli - cation to set aside would generally lead to the conclu -
sion that there is simply no award to enforce. Also, if the seat court has set aside the award, such decision may be given preclusive effect (see The Republic of India v Deutsche Telekom AG [2024] 1 SLR 56 at [77], [96]). Where the award is subject to ongoing setting-aside proceedings at the courts of its seat, under Section 31 (5) IAA, the Singapore court may, if it considers proper to do so, adjourn the enforcement proceed - ings, and on the application of the party seeking to enforce the award may order the other party to give suitable security. Enforcement of Singapore Awards The procedure for enforcement of Singapore awards under the IAA and AA follows a similar two-stage pro - cess. While the grounds for refusal of enforcement of a Singapore award are not set out in the IAA or AA, it is generally accepted that the same grounds which apply to refusal of enforcement of foreign awards also apply to Singapore awards (see EFG Bank AG , Sin- gapore Branch v Surewin Worldwide Ltd and Others [2022] 5 SLR 915 at [76]). Sovereign Immunity Sovereign immunity is not, by itself, a ground for resisting the enforcement of an award against a state in Singapore. Where a state has agreed in writing to submit a dispute to arbitration, Section 11 of the State Immunity Act 1979 (SIA) provides that the state is not immune as regards proceedings in the Singapore courts relating to the arbitration, subject to any con - trary provision in the arbitration agreement (although this does not apply to any arbitration agreement between states). Section 4 (1) SIA further provides that a state is not immune as regards proceedings in respect of which it has submitted to the jurisdiction of the Singapore courts. In NextEra Energy Global Hold- ings BV and another v Kingdom of Spain [2026] SGHC 43, the High Court held that Spain had, by entering into the ICSID Convention, submitted to the jurisdic - tion of the courts of other contracting states for ICSID recognition and enforcement proceedings. Section 4 (1) SIA thus applied, precluding Spain from invoking state immunity to resist enforcement of the award. The High Court further held that Spain had in any case agreed in writing to arbitrate pursuant to Article 26 of
847 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook