CZD v CZE: Enforcement of Foreign Arbitration Award in Singapore

In CZD v CZE, the High Court of Singapore addressed the defendant's application to set aside an order enforcing a Beijing arbitration award in favor of the claimant. The defendant argued the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction, the award violated public policy, and the claimant failed to disclose material facts. Chua Lee Ming J dismissed the defendant's appeal and application, finding the tribunal acted within its jurisdiction, no procedural fraud occurred, and the claimant's non-disclosure was inconsequential given subsequent events. The court ordered each party to bear its own costs.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Application and appeal dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court enforces a Beijing arbitration award, dismissing challenges based on jurisdiction, public policy, and disclosure duties.

1.7 Decision Date

4 April 2023

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
CZD	Claimant	Corporation	Claimant's application to enforce arbitration award granted	Won	Melvin See Hsien Huei of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP Alexander Kamsany Lee of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP Zheng Yangyou of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
CZE	Defendant, Appellant	Individual	Application to set aside Enforcement Order dismissed	Lost	Tan Ee Hsien of WongPartnership LLP Chang Qi-Yang of WongPartnership LLP Tsin Jenny of WongPartnership LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Chua Lee Ming	Judge of the High Court	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Melvin See Hsien Huei	Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Alexander Kamsany Lee	Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Zheng Yangyou	Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Tan Ee Hsien	WongPartnership LLP
Chang Qi-Yang	WongPartnership LLP
Tsin Jenny	WongPartnership LLP

4. Facts

Claimant, defendant, and TargetCo entered into a Loan Agreement in September 2017.
Claimant, defendant, and TargetCo entered into a Cooperation Agreement.
Defendant, TargetCo, and others entered into an Investment Agreement.
Claimant commenced arbitration proceedings in Beijing against the defendant.
The Tribunal issued an Award in favor of the claimant.
Defendant brought legal challenges against the Award in the PRC, all of which were rejected.
Claimant filed an originating application to enforce the Award in Singapore.

5. Formal Citations

CZD v CZE, Originating Application No 725 of 2022 (Registrar’s Appeal No 23 of 2023 and Summons No 4435 of 2022), [2023] SGHC 86

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2017-09-01	Loan Agreement entered into
2017-01-01	Cooperation Agreement entered into
2017-12-01	Investment Agreement entered into
2020-01-01	Arbitration proceedings commenced in Beijing
2021-01-01	Arbitration Award issued
2021-06-01	Defendant's bank accounts and shares frozen
2021-01-01	Defendant applied to set aside the Award
2021-01-01	Defendant applied for an order that the Award not be enforced
2022-01-01	Defendant applied for a procuratorial order for civil supervision
2022-11-01	Claimant filed originating application to enforce the Award in Singapore
2022-11-02	Enforcement Order granted
2022-12-14	Defendant filed application to set aside the Enforcement Order
2023-01-31	Assistant Registrar dismissed application to file further affidavit
2023-02-01	Defendant lodged appeal against Assistant Registrar’s decision
2023-04-05	Application and appeal dismissed

7. Legal Issues

Excess of Jurisdiction by Arbitral Tribunal
- Outcome: The court held that the Tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2021] 2 SLR 235
Public Policy Violation (Procedural Fraud)
- Outcome: The court held that the Award was not procured through procedural fraud.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2014] 1 SLR 814
  - [2021] 1 SLR 1045
Full and Frank Disclosure Duty
- Outcome: The court found a breach of the duty but declined to set aside the Enforcement Order.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2008] 4 SLR(R) 994
  - [2009] 4 SLR 365
  - [2016] 1 SLR 859

8. Remedies Sought

Enforcement of Arbitration Award
Setting Aside of Enforcement Order

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

Arbitration
Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
CDM and another v CDP	High Court	Yes	[2021] 2 SLR 235	Singapore	Cited for the principle on assessing whether an arbitral tribunal has acted in excess of its jurisdiction.
BAZ v BBA and others and other matters	High Court	Yes	[2020] 5 SLR 266	Singapore	Cited for the principle that jurisdictional challenges to the powers of the tribunal attracted a de novo review from the seat court.
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 that the New York Convention permits a party to resist enforcement even after an unsuccessful active challenge.
Aloe Vera of America, Inc v Asianic Food (S) Pte Ltd and another	High Court	Yes	[2006] 3 SLR(R) 174	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court could not look into the merits of the award and allow the award debtor to relitigate issues that he could have brought up either before the Arbitrator or the supervisory court.
Newspeed International Ltd v Citus Trading Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2003] 3 SLR(R) 1	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the losing party in an arbitration could either apply to the seat court to set aside the award or wait until enforcement was sought and then oppose the enforcement; the two options were alternatives, not cumulative.
Gujarat NRE Coke Ltd v Coeclerici Asia (Pte) Ltd	Federal Court of Australia	Yes	[2013] FCAFC 109	Australia	Cited regarding the question of whether issue estoppel operates during enforcement proceedings.
Beijing Sinozonto Mining Investment Co Ltd v Goldenray Consortium (Singapore) Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2014] 1 SLR 814	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an award obtained by fraud would violate the basic notions of morality and justice, thus amounting to a breach of the public policy of Singapore.
Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels Inc and another v Global Gaming Philippines LLC and another	High Court	Yes	[2021] 1 SLR 1045	Singapore	Cited for the principle that fraud must include procedural fraud, that is, when a party commits perjury, conceals material information and/or suppresses evidence that would have substantial effect on the making of the award.
The “Vasiliy Golovnin”	High Court	Yes	[2008] 4 SLR(R) 994	Singapore	Cited for the principle that in an application without notice, the applicant must disclose to the court all matters within his knowledge which might be material even if they are prejudicial to the applicant’s claim.
Bahtera Offshore (M) Sdn Bhd v Sim Kok Beng	High Court	Yes	[2009] 4 SLR 365	Singapore	Cited for the principle that even if the court finds a failure to make full and frank disclosure, it retains an overriding discretion not to set aside the court order granted without notice.
AUF v AUG and other matters	High Court	Yes	[2016] 1 SLR 859	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a pending application to set aside an award and appeal on questions of law were facts that were material in deciding on an application without notice to enforce the award.
Unión Fenosa Gas SA v Arab Republic of Egypt	High Court of Justice	Yes	[2020] EWHC 1723 (Comm)	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that even if the court sets aside the order granted without notice, it retains a discretion to re-grant the court order if it is just to do so.
Lin Chien Hsiung v Lin Hsiu-Fen	High Court of Hong Kong	Yes	[2022] HKCFI 1270	Hong Kong	Cited for the principle that the High Court of Hong Kong discharged an ex parte order for the enforcement of an arbitral award on the ground of failure to make full and frank disclosure of a pending setting aside application, which was similarly dismissed before the High Court delivered its decision.
CKR and another v CKT and another	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2021] SGHCR 4	Singapore	Cited regarding the view that a pending application to set aside an arbitral award was not an issue to be determined at the first ex parte stage in deciding whether leave to enforce an award should be granted.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (2021 Rev Ed) Order 3 r 5(6)
Rules of Court (2021 Rev Ed) Order 3 r 5(7)
Rules of Court (2021 Rev Ed) Order 3 r 1
Rules of Court (2021 Rev Ed) Order 12 r 2(1)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
International Arbitration Act 1994	Singapore
International Arbitration Act 1994 s 31(2)(d)	Singapore
International Arbitration Act 1994 s 31(4)(b)	Singapore
International Arbitration Act 1994 s 31(5)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Arbitration Award
Enforcement Order
Full and Frank Disclosure
Excess of Jurisdiction
Procedural Fraud
Loan Agreement
Cooperation Agreement
Investment Agreement
Beijing Arbitration Commission

15.2 Keywords

arbitration
enforcement
foreign award
jurisdiction
public policy
disclosure
Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Arbitration	90
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments	70
Full and Frank Disclosure	50
International Commercial Contracts	40
Jurisdiction	30
Contract Law	30
Costs	20
Estoppel	20

16. Subjects

Arbitration
Contract Law
Civil Procedure