Singapore High Court declines to block global enforcement of SIAC award

In Vietnam National Industry–Energy Group v Power Machines [2025] SGHC 180, the Singapore High Court dealt with the question whether it could grant an injunction restraining enforcement of a SIAC award worldwide, pending the outcome of set-aside proceedings in Singapore.

Power Machines prevailed in a SIAC arbitration, obtaining a final award against Vietnam National Industry–Energy Group (PVN). Part of the award was remitted to the tribunal in 2024 after the Singapore court found a breach of the fair hearing rule, but the tribunal left its findings unchanged. Meanwhile, Russian courts granted enforcement of the award, and PVN failed in attempts to halt those proceedings. PVN then applied in Singapore for a global anti-enforcement injunction, seeking to prevent Power Machines from enforcing the award anywhere in the world until its Singapore challenges were resolved.

The High Court dismissed the application. PVN advanced four arguments:

1. PVN claimed a contractual right under the arbitration clause and the Model Law to stop enforcement worldwide. The Court rejected this, noting that Article 36 of the Model Law is not part of Singapore law and that 31(2)(f) of the International Arbitration Act only empowers Singapore courts to refuse enforcement in Singapore, not abroad.
   
   
2. PVN argued that enforcement abroad would oust the jurisdiction of the Singapore courts. The Court disagreed, holding that foreign enforcement does not affect Singapore’s supervisory jurisdiction as the seat court, and that it is for foreign enforcement courts alone to decide whether to enforce. 
   
   
3. PVN submitted that the order made in July 2024 already barred enforcement worldwide. The Court clarified that the order only paused enforcement in Singapore while the remitted issue was being decided, and did not have global effect. 
   
   
4. PVN contended that an injunction was required in the interests of justice, as enforcement abroad would render its Singapore appeals ineffective. The Court again rejected this, noting that under Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention, enforcement courts are not obliged to follow a seat court’s decision to set aside an award (Republic of India v Deutsche Telekom [2024] 1 SLR 56). Even if the Singapore Court of Appeal were to set aside the award, foreign courts could still choose to enforce it. 

The Court confirmed that the question of enforcing arbitral awards abroad lies primarily with foreign enforcement courts under the New York Convention, and declined to extend its reach to restrain such proceedings in this case.