SINGAPORE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Koh Swee Yen, Joel Quek, Alessa Pang and Andre Soh, WongPartnership LLP
Introduction Following the 30th anniversary of the International Arbitration Act 1994 (IAA) in 2025, the past year has continued to see a substantial body of arbitration- related jurisprudence from the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC), the General Division of the High Court (GDHC) and the Court of Appeal (SGCA). These decisions confirm that the Singapore courts maintain a pro-arbitration approach that respects the autonomy and finality of the arbitral process, only intervening where the integrity of that process or the courts’ own international obligations are engaged. Several themes dominated the year. Firstly, inves - tor-state disputes continued to feature prominently, with the Singapore courts addressing issues of state immunity, the enforcement of ICSID awards and the “intra-EU objection” (ie, the contention that there can be no valid arbitration agreement between an EU member state and an investor of another EU member state, following the Court of Justice of the European Union’s decisions in Achmea and Komstroy ). Second - ly, the courts clarified the scope of their protective powers in aid of arbitration, including the power to grant worldwide freezing orders in support of foreign- seated arbitrations. Thirdly, the courts continued to refine the doctrines governing resistance to enforce - ment, including procedural fraud, the re-litigation of issues already decided by a tribunal, and impermis - sible “hedging”. Fourthly, the courts revisited the dis - tinction between jurisdiction and admissibility and the identification of proper parties to an arbitration agree - ment. Finally, the impact of international sanctions and the recoverability of third-party funding costs emerged as issues of practical importance. This article examines the most significant decisions of the past year and what they signal for users of Sin - gapore-seated and Singapore-connected arbitrations. Investor-State Disputes: State Immunity, ICSID Enforcement and the Intra-EU Objection In recent years, the Singapore courts have heard a growing number of investor-state cases involving the enforcement of, and challenges to, investment treaty awards, underscoring Singapore’s role as a key arbi - tral seat and enforcement forum. The past year saw two significant decisions in this space, both arising
under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) and concerning what is commonly referred to as the “intra-EU objec - tion”. Enforcement of ICSID awards and state immunity: NextEra v Spain In NextEra Energy Global Holdings BV and another v Kingdom of Spain [2026] SGHC 43, the GDHC dis - missed Spain’s application to set aside an order reg - istering an ICSID award in favour of two Dutch inves - tors. The award had been rendered under the ECT, to which both Spain and the Netherlands are contract - ing parties, and Spain’s attempt to annul it within the ICSID system had failed. Spain resisted registration in Singapore on the basis of state immunity under the State Immunity Act 1979 (SIA), and, alternatively, that registration should be set aside in the interests of justice. The court held that Spain did not enjoy state immunity because both the “submission exception” in Section 4 and the “arbitrations exception” in Section 11 of the SIA applied. On the submission exception, the court held that by acceding to the ICSID Convention – in particular Articles 53 to 55 – Spain had submit - ted in writing to the jurisdiction of the courts of other contracting parties for the purpose of recognition and enforcement proceedings. The court followed deci - sions of the High Court of Australia, the Federal Court of Australia, the English Court of Appeal and the US courts, which have treated accession to the ICSID Convention as a waiver of adjudicative immunity. The court emphasised that the ICSID Convention establishes a “self-contained system” that is not subject to review by national courts: a party that has failed to annul an ICSID award cannot resist its recog - nition by re-litigating the tribunal’s jurisdiction before an enforcing court. This is consistent with the SGCA’s earlier reasoning in The Republic of India v Deutsche Telekom AG [2023] SGCA(I) 10 and the SICC’s deci - sion in Hulley Enterprises Ltd v The Russian Federa- tion [2025] SGHC(I) 19, both of which featured in the previous edition of this guide. Although it was strictly unnecessary to do so, the court also held that the arbitration exception in Section 11 applied, because Article 26 of the ECT constituted a written offer by Spain to arbitrate.
852 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook