SICC Clarifies That Appeals Lie Against Orders, Not Reasons, in Arbitral Award Enforcement Proceedings

In Hulley Enterprises Ltd and others v The Russian Federation [2025] SGHC(I) 27, the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) dismissed the Russian Federation's application for permission to appeal against an earlier decision that had contained reasons for prospective orders, but had not actually made any appealable orders. The Court held that an appeal lies against a judgment or order—that is, an operative outcome—and not the reasons given for that outcome.

The claimants had obtained a Leave Order permitting enforcement of arbitral awards against Russia. Russia applied via SUM 286 to set aside the Leave Order on grounds including state immunity. The Court addressed certain preliminary issues in a decision dated 25 July 2025, holding that Russia was precluded by transnational issue estoppel from relitigating state immunity. However, the Court deferred deciding whether Russia could raise other grounds to challenge enforcement.

Russia then filed SUM 62 seeking permission to appeal the 25 July Decision immediately, arguing it was an order in an “application in proceedings” under Order 21 rules 3 and 20 of the SICC Rules, which generally limits parties to one appeal per application. The claimants contended that no permission was required because the decision was one “made on the merits of the proceedings” under Order 21 rule 21. Both sides assumed that the 25 July Decision was an appealable judgment or order.

The Court rejected this premise. It held that appeals lie against orders (outcomes), not reasons. The 25 July Decision had neither granted nor dismissed any prayers in SUM 286 but contained only reasons for prospective orders. Because no order had been made disposing of SUM 286, no appeal could be brought. The Court then made formal orders dismissing the prayers relating to state immunity, creating an appealable order.

The Court also held that decisions on applications to set aside leave orders in arbitral award enforcement proceedings are decisions “on the merits of the proceedings,” not “applications in proceedings.” The setting-aside application constitutes the second stage of resolving whether the award should be enforced and is itself the hearing on the merits.

Consequently, Russia does not need permission to appeal and has 28 days to file any such appeal. The Court dismissed SUM 62 with costs in the cause of Russia's prospective appeal.

This decision reinforces that appeals lie against operative orders, not judicial reasoning. It provides important clarity for parties enforcing arbitral awards in Singapore. Setting-aside applications are heard “on the merits,” meaning direct appeal rights apply with strict 28-day timelines. Parties attempting premature appeals against interlocutory reasoning risk dismissal and adverse costs orders.