Lao People's Democratic Republic v Lao Holdings NV: Setting Aside of ICSID Award Enforcement
The Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (GOL) sought to enforce an ICSID Award against Lao Holdings NV (LHNV) in Singapore. LHNV applied to set aside the enforcement order, arguing that the ICSID Tribunal was misled regarding GOL's legal fee agreement. The Singapore International Commercial Court, comprising Andre Maniam J, Vivian Ramsey IJ, and Douglas Jones IJ, dismissed LHNV's application, finding that LHNV should have raised these issues in a prior setting-aside application and that the fee agreement did not warrant refusing enforcement of the award.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Singapore International Commercial Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application to set aside order to enforce ICSID award. The court dismissed the application, finding no grounds to refuse enforcement.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic | Claimant | Government Agency | Application granted | Won | |
| Lao Holdings NV | Respondent | Corporation | Application dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andre Maniam | Judge of the High Court | No |
| Vivian Ramsey | International Judge | Yes |
| Douglas Jones | International Judge | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- LHNV applied to set aside an order granting GOL leave to enforce an ICSID Award.
- LHNV argued the ICSID Tribunal was misled into granting an excessive costs order against it.
- LHNV contended GOL intentionally withheld disclosure of a fee cap agreement.
- The ICSID Award ordered LHNV to pay GOL US$481,622.95 for arbitration costs and US$1,467,483.72 for legal costs and expenses.
- LHNV previously applied to set aside the ICSID Award, which was dismissed.
- GOL had a fee agreement with its lawyers with a US$1.5 million fee cap and a conditional element.
- LHNV argued that GOL's failure to disclose the fee agreement was contrary to public policy.
5. Formal Citations
- Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic v Lao Holdings NV, Originating Application No 18 of 2023 (Summons No 2721 of 2023), [2024] SGHC(I) 9
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| ICSID Award issued | |
| LHNV filed setting-aside application (OS 5) | |
| LHNV re-filed supporting affidavit for OS 5 | |
| OS 5 dismissed | |
| LHNV's appeal against OS 5 dismissal was dismissed | |
| GOL made a "without notice" application to enforce the ICSID Award | |
| Court granted GOL's application to enforce the ICSID Award | |
| LHNV applied to set aside the court order | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Setting Aside of Enforcement Order
- Outcome: The court held that LHNV was precluded from raising the grounds in the current application because it could and should have raised them in the prior setting-aside application.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Abuse of process
- Failure to raise grounds in prior application
- Enforcement of ICSID Award
- Outcome: The court held that enforcement of the ICSID Award should not be refused because of GOL’s fee cap agreement.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Public policy
- Scope of submission to arbitration
- Agreed arbitral procedure
- Disclosure of Fee Agreement
- Outcome: The court held that GOL was not under an obligation to disclose the fee agreement to the ICSID Tribunal.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside of enforcement order
9. Cause of Actions
- Setting aside of court order
- Enforcement of arbitral award
10. Practice Areas
- Arbitration
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lao Holdings NV v Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic and another matter | Singapore International Commercial Court | Yes | [2021] 5 SLR 228 | Singapore | Cited for the dismissal of LHNV's setting-aside application (OS 5). |
| Lao Holdings NV and another v Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2023] 1 SLR 55 | Singapore | Cited for the dismissal of LHNV's appeal against the dismissal of OS 5. |
| The Royal Bank of Scotland NV (formerly known as ABN Amro Bank NV) and others v TT International Ltd (nTan Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd and others, other parties) and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 1104 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that parties must bring their whole case forward in litigation. |
| Beyonics Asia Pacific Ltd and others v Goh Chan Peng and another and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 1 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that parties must bring their whole case forward in litigation. |
| Henderson v Henderson | English Court | Yes | (1843) 3 Hare 100; 67 ER 313 | England | Cited for the principle that parties must bring their whole case forward in litigation. |
| Johnson v Gore Wood and Co (a Firm) | House of Lords | Yes | [2002] 2 AC 1 | England | Cited for the principle that parties must bring their whole case forward in litigation. |
| 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 strict application of the three-month time limit in Article 34(3) of the Model Law. |
| BZW and another v BZV | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 1 SLR 1080 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that the three-month time limit in Article 34(3) only applies to the filing of the originating summons and not the affidavit in support. |
| ABC Co v XYZ Co Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR(R) 546 | Singapore | Cited regarding the amendment of applications under the Rules of Court. |
| Mohamed Amin bin Mohamed Taib and others v Lim Choon Thye and others | High Court | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 343 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court should draw an adverse inference in the absence of the fee agreement being disclosed. |
| PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SA | High Court | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 597 | Singapore | Cited for the test to determine if enforcement of an award would be contrary to public policy in Singapore. |
| Sanum Investments Ltd and another v Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic and others and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2022] 4 SLR 198 | Singapore | Cited for the test to determine if enforcement of an award would be contrary to public policy in Singapore. |
| Sui Southern Gas Co Ltd v Habibullah Coastal Power Co (Pte) Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2010] 3 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited for the test to determine if enforcement of an award would be contrary to public policy in Singapore. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration Article 34(3) |
| UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration Article 36(1)(a)(iii) |
| UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration Article 36(1)(a)(iv) |
| UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration Article 36(1)(b)(ii) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| International Arbitration Act 1994 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- ICSID Award
- Fee cap agreement
- Enforcement of award
- Setting aside application
- Abuse of process
- Public policy
- Conditional fee agreement
15.2 Keywords
- arbitration
- ICSID
- enforcement
- setting aside
- fee agreement
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Arbitration | 90 |
| International Commercial Arbitration | 85 |
| Enforcement of Foreign Judgments | 75 |
| Costs | 60 |
| Civil Procedure | 50 |
| Commercial Disputes | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- International Arbitration
- Civil Procedure