Singapore Court Reaffirms Need To Prove Prejudice To Refuse Enforcement

No harm, no foul Singapore High Court reaffirms need to prove prejudice to refuse enforcement of award

Stephenson Harwood review the 2018 decision of the Singapore High Court in Sanum Investments Limited v ST Group Co, Ltd [2018] SGHC 141, where the Court reaffirmed that proving prejudice is an essential element when resisting an application for enforcement of an arbitral award and that demonstrating irregularities in the arbitral procedure alone would not suffice, even where the arbitration was found by the court to have been conducted in the wrong seat. The Court also held that while the parties’ choice of seat is important, such choice is less critical where the disgruntled party is not seeking to set aside the award but is resisting enforcement since enforcement proceedings could be brought in any jurisdiction, whereas only the court of the seat can set aside an award. 


About Phillip Rompotis

Phillip practices as a barrister and arbitrator in Hong Kong. He has over 25 years’ litigation and arbitration experience in commercial disputes relating to construction & engineering, financial services, joint venture & shareholders agreements, technology, trusts, property and landlord & tenant. He is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, the Hong Kong Institute of Arbitrators, the Singapore Institute of Arbitrators, the Malaysian Institute of Arbitrators, and a member of various lists/panels of arbitrators.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *