CKR v CKT: Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Despite Pending Set Aside Applications
In Originating Summonses Nos 1274 and 1275 of 2020, the Plaintiffs, CKR and another, sought leave to enforce three separate arbitral awards against the Defendants, CKT and another, before the Singapore seat court, despite pending applications to set aside the same arbitral awards. The High Court granted leave to enforce the Second Partial Award, the Final Award, and the Additional Final Award, emphasizing that the existence of pending setting aside applications does not prevent the enforcement of arbitral awards.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Leave granted to enforce the Second Partial Award, the Final Award, and the Additional Final Award.
1.3 Case Type
Arbitration
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court grants leave to enforce arbitral awards despite pending applications to set aside the same awards, emphasizing the principle of finality.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CKR | Plaintiff | Other | Leave to enforce awards granted | Won | Chew Kei-Jin, Stephanie Tan Silin, Tyne Lam Yan-Ting |
| CKT | Defendant | Corporation | Leave to enforce awards granted | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Eunice Chan Swee En | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Chew Kei-Jin | Ascendant Legal LLC |
| Stephanie Tan Silin | Ascendant Legal LLC |
| Tyne Lam Yan-Ting | Ascendant Legal LLC |
4. Facts
- Plaintiffs sought to enforce three arbitral awards.
- Defendants had pending applications to set aside the same awards.
- The arbitration seat was in Singapore.
- The High Court granted leave to enforce the awards.
- The court applied a mechanistic approach to the enforcement application.
- The court considered the principle of finality in arbitration.
5. Formal Citations
- CKR and another v CKT and another, , [2021] SGHCR 4
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Share Purchase Agreement signed | |
| Plaintiffs issued termination letters | |
| MIC granted awards in favor of the Plaintiffs | |
| MIC granted awards in favor of the Plaintiffs | |
| Plaintiffs commenced arbitration against the Defendants | |
| Hearing of legal issues conducted | |
| Tribunal issued the First Partial Award | |
| Defendants filed Originating Summons No 683 of 2018 | |
| Tribunal issued the Second Partial Award | |
| Defendants applied to set aside the Second Partial Award in Originating Summons 1401 of 2019 | |
| Tribunal issued Final Award | |
| Tribunal issued Additional Final Award | |
| Defendants applied to set aside parts of the Final Award and the Additional Final Award in Originating Summons No 874 of 2020 | |
| Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in Civil Appeal No 178 of 2019 | |
| Hearing date | |
| Hearing date | |
| Judgment date |
7. Legal Issues
- Enforcement of Arbitral Awards
- Outcome: The court held that leave to enforce arbitral awards may be granted even when there are pending setting aside applications.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2006] 3 SLR(R) 174
- [2010] 3 SLR 661
- [2011] 1 SLR 727
- [2014] 1 SLR 372
- [2016] 4 HKC 254
- [2019] 4 SLR 537
8. Remedies Sought
- Leave to enforce arbitral awards
9. Cause of Actions
- Enforcement of Arbitral Award
10. Practice Areas
- Arbitration
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Travel
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aloe Vera of America, Inc v Asianic Food (S) Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2006] 3 SLR(R) 174 | Singapore | Cited for the mechanistic/formalist approach to the examination of documents under O 69A r 6 of the Rules of Court during the enforcement of arbitral awards. |
| Denmark Skibstekniske Konsulenter A/s I Livkidation (formerly known as Knud E Hansen A/S) v Ultrapolis 300 Investments Ltd (formerly known as Ultrapolis 3000 Theme Park Investments Ltd) | High Court | Yes | [2010] 3 SLR 661 | Singapore | Cited to endorse the mechanistic approach laid down in Aloe Vera regarding the enforcement of arbitral awards. |
| Glasworthy Ltd of the Republic of Liberia v Glory Wealth Shipping Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2011] 1 SLR 727 | Singapore | Cited to distinguish the approach at the second stage of enforcement from the mechanistic approach at the first stage. |
| PT First Media TBK (formerly known as PT Broadband Multimedia TBK) v Astro Nusantara International BV and others and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 372 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of finality in arbitral awards and that curial remedies do not affect the final and binding nature of an award. |
| L v B | N/A | Yes | [2016] 4 HKC 254 | Hong Kong | Cited for the view that challenging an award in the supervisory court does not automatically mean the award is not binding. |
| Man Diesel Turbo SE v IM Skaugen Marine Services Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2019] 4 SLR 537 | Singapore | Cited to highlight that an adjournment pursuant to s 31(5) of the IAA can only be made at the second stage of enforcement. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Arbitral award
- Enforcement
- Setting aside application
- Finality
- Mechanistic approach
- International Arbitration Act
- UNCITRAL Model Law
- Issue estoppel
15.2 Keywords
- Arbitration
- Enforcement
- Singapore
- Arbitral Awards
- Setting Aside
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- Enforcement of Arbitral Awards
17. Areas of Law
- Arbitration Law
- Civil Procedure
- Enforcement