Hulley Enterprises Ltd and others v The Russian Federation [2025] SGHC(I) 19 (25 July 2025) (Maniam J, Allsop IJ and Meagher IJ)
The Singapore International Commercial Court (“SICC”) has held the Russian Federation was barred by transnational issue estoppel from invoking sovereign immunity to resist the enforcement in Singapore of three arbitral awards worth over USD 50 billion.
Background
The claimants, shareholders in Yukos, sought to enforce three arbitral awards (the “Awards”) in Singapore. The Awards were issued in three parallel arbitrations seated in the Netherlands under the Energy Charter Treaty (“ECT”).
The SICC had earlier granted ex parte leave to enforce the Awards (the “Leave Order”). Russia applied to set aside the Leave Order, arguing that:
it was immune from Singapore court jurisdiction under section 3(1) of the State Immunity Act 1979 (“SIA”); and
the arbitration exception in section 11(1) of the SIA did not apply, as Russia had not consented to arbitration.
Decision
The SICC dismissed Russia’s objections. It held that Russia’s jurisdictional arguments had already been rejected by the arbitral tribunal and conclusively determined by the Dutch appellate courts, as the courts of the seat. As such, they gave rise to transnational issue estoppel under Singapore law.
In reaching this conclusion, the SICC applied the Singapore Court of Appeal’s decision in Republic of India v Deutsche Telekom AG [2023] SGCA(I) 10, which confirmed that the doctrine of transnational issue estoppel applies in international commercial arbitration, even where issues of state immunity are raised.
The SICC also rejected Russia’s contention that applying an estoppel would improperly enlarge the court’s jurisdiction or breach Singapore’s obligations under international law. It held that issue estoppel is part of Singapore’s procedural and domestic law and does not undermine the statutory framework of the SIA.
Significance
The decision highlights the significance of proceedings before the courts of the seat in non-ICSID investment treaty arbitrations and the preclusive effect such judgments may have in enforcement jurisdictions.
Notably, the English Court of Appeal, in parallel proceedings concerning the same Awards, similarly applied issue estoppel to prevent Russia from re-litigating the same points and held that Russia was not immune (Hulley Enterprises Ltd and others v The Russian Federation [2025] EWCA Civ 108). The English court confirmed that applying estoppel did not contravene the principle that jurisdiction cannot be created by estoppel.