Enforcement of arbitral awards is a critical aspect of ensuring that international arbitration remains an effective and reliable means of dispute resolution. In Singapore, the process for enforcing arbitral awards is governed by the International Arbitration Act (“IAA”) and the Arbitration Act (“AA”), with provisions that apply to both domestic and international awards. Whether a party seeks to enforce an award made within Singapore or abroad, the courts play a vital role in ensuring that awards are honoured and upheld.
This article explores the enforcement mechanisms in place under Singaporean law, including the process for domestic and foreign arbitral awards, notable case law and the grounds upon which enforcement may be challenged.
Key Processes
According to the section 46, AA and section 19 of IAA, an arbitral award made in Singapore may, by leave of the Singapore High Court, be enforced in the same manner as a judgment or an order to the same effect and where leave is so given, judgment may be entered in terms of the award. Section 6, Limitation Act states that an application for leave to enforce must be made within six years of the date of the award.
An application for leave to enforce is made ex parte and is supported by an affidavit exhibiting, inter alia, a copy or original of the arbitration agreement and the award. If the court grants an order for leave to enforce an award, the judgment creditor must draw up the order and serve the order on the judgment debtor by delivering a copy of the order to its usual or last known place of business, or in such manner as the court may direct.
he debtor may apply to set aside an order for the enforcement of an award. The time for making such an application may be extended pursuant to Order 3, r.4(1) of the Singapore Rules of Court or under the court's inherent jurisdiction (Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels Inc and another v Global Gaming Philippines LLC and another [2020] SGHC 1).
In DFL v DFM [2024] SGHC 71, the respondent to enforcement proceedings was unsuccessful in an application to set aside an order permitting enforcement of an arbitral award granting interim relief. The Singapore High Court held that the failure of the respondent to expressly raise jurisdictional objections in the application for interim relief before the arbitral tribunal amounted to waiving those objections, despite the respondent having made the jurisdictional objections in the main arbitration proceedings.
Among other things, the court held that a reservation of rights in the answer to a request for arbitration coupled with jurisdictional objections in the statement of defence may be inadequate to protect a respondent's position, even where submissions in an interim relief application are caveated as being “without prejudice” to those objections.
In National Oilwell Varco Norway AS (formerly known as Hydralift AS) v Keppel FELS Ltd (formerly known as Far East Levingston Shipbuilding Ltd) [2022] SGCA 24, the Singapore Court of Appeal permitted a misnamed party to enforce an award on the ground that the misnamed party was, in fact, the same legal person as the party named in the award.
Foreign arbitral awards made in countries that are signatories to the New York Convention
Singapore is a signatory to the New York Convention 1958 (“NYC”), subject to the repository reservation. Therefore, arbitral awards made in another country that is a signatory to the NYC may be enforced similarly to an arbitral award made in Singapore under section 29 of IAA. The court may refuse enforcement of such foreign arbitral awards on one of the following grounds:
a party to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity
the arbitration agreement was not valid
the party refusing enforcement was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his or her case
the arbitral award goes beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement
the composition of the tribunal or arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, or failing such agreement, the law of the country where the arbitration took place
the arbitral award has not yet become binding or has been set side or suspended in the country where the arbitral award was made
the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under Singapore law
enforcement of the arbitral award would be contrary to Singapore’s public policy
(Article 31, IAA.)
Where parties have agreed to conditions relating to enforcement of an award that have not been fulfilled, the court may be prepared to grant a stay of enforcement.
In Man Diesel Turbo SE v I M Skaugen Marine Services Pte Ltd [2018] SGHC 132, the Singapore High Court rejected an application to adjourn enforcement proceedings and to challenge the enforcement of an award rendered by the Danish Institute of Arbitration. This was the first time the Singapore Court considered an application pursuant to section 31(5)(a) of the IAA for enforcement of an award to be adjourned pending determination of an application to set aside the award at the seat, which in this case was Denmark.
The court concluded that no adjournment should be granted. It noted that whilst there is no threshold test for granting an adjournment pursuant to section 31(5)(a) of the IAA, the court concerned is to strike a balance between the competing interests of the parties and will come down on the side of the outcome that is the most just or the least unjust.
A person seeking to enforce in Singapore an arbitral award made in another country that is signatory to the New York Convention must make an ex parte application for leave to enforce supported by an affidavit which, inter alia, exhibits the following documents (Section 30, IAA):
The duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy.
The original arbitration agreement under which the award was made or a duly certified copy.
If the arbitral award or the agreement are foreign, a certified English translation is required.
Where translations are required for the purposes of recognition and enforcement, it is advisable to use credible translators so as avoid complications and delays in recognising and enforcing the award. The six-year limitation period for making an application for leave to enforce also applies to foreign awards made in countries that are signatories to the NYC (section 6, Limitation Act).
In Republic of India v Deutsche Telekom AG [2023] SGCA(I) 10, the Singapore Court of Appeal held that the doctrine of transnational issue estoppel applies to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, preventing the parties to a prior decision of the seat court on jurisdiction from re-litigating points previously raised and determined. India sought to argue that a decision enforcing the award should be set overturned because the tribunal lacked jurisdiction.
However, the Singapore Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that India had contested the tribunal’s issue before the courts of the seat (Switzerland), which had finally rejected India’s arguments. That decision had a preclusive effect on India’s attempts to resist enforcement.
Foreign arbitral awards made in countries that are non-signatories to the New York Convention
If the foreign arbitral award is made in a country that is not a signatory to the NYC, the award may be enforced in the following manner:
in the same manner as an award made under the AA (section 46(3), AA)
pursuant to the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act 1959
by way of a common law action based on the implied promise in every arbitration agreement that the parties would perform the award (Alexander G Tsavliris & Sons Maritime Co v Keppel Corp Ltd [1995] 1 SLR(R) 701, at paragraphs [10] and [20]
Conclusion
The enforcement of arbitral awards is a crucial aspect of ensuring that arbitration remains a practical and effective dispute resolution mechanism. Singapore’s robust legal framework provides a clear process for enforcing both domestic and foreign awards, reinforcing its position as a global arbitration hub.
While enforcement is generally granted, there are specific grounds on which awards can be contested and the courts have demonstrated a consistent approach to ensuring the fairness and integrity of the arbitration process. As international arbitration continues to grow, Singapore’s commitment to upholding arbitral awards further cements its reputation as a trusted venue for global dispute resolution.