SICC: Anti-suit injunctions and sovereign immunity in disputes involving state entities

In CMC v. Melamchi Water Supply Development Board [2025] SGHC(I) 1 the Singapore International Commercial Court clarified the requirements for anti-suit injunctions and sovereign immunity in disputes involving state entities, particularly in commercial contracts with arbitration clauses.

The SICC examined the relationship between anti-suit injunction principles and the sovereign immunity doctrine. The Court distinguished the separate criteria applicable to contractual versus non-contractual anti-suit injunctions, and addressed the circumstances under which injunctive remedies may be granted against governmental or government-affiliated entities within Singapore's judicial system.

Courts must consider sovereign immunity even without the state raising it. Key distinctions are:
·         Adjudicative jurisdiction: Authority to decide claims against states
·         Enforcement jurisdiction: Authority to enforce judgments/orders against states
Anti-suit injunctions fall under the category of enforcement jurisdiction, requiring specific waiver or clear consent from the state. Hence, Melamchi was not entitled to sovereign immunity because the contract was commercial in nature, not an exercise of sovereign authority.

Contractual anti-suit injunctions have a simpler three-part test focused on enforcing existing agreements, while non-contractual ones require additional analysis of forum appropriateness and vexatious conduct.

This decision provides clarity on obtaining anti-suit injunctions against state entities in commercial disputes, particularly where arbitration agreements designate Singapore as the seat.