Aastar Trading v Olam Global Agri: Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Award & Adjournment Pending Setting Aside

In [2025] SGHC 5, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore addressed an application by Aastar Trading Pte Ltd to enforce a Malaysian arbitral award against Olam Global Agri Pte Ltd. Olam sought an adjournment pending the outcome of its application in Malaysia to set aside the award. Kristy Tan JC granted the adjournment, finding that Olam's setting aside application was bona fide, the award's validity was not manifest, enforcement would not be hindered, the delay was not undue, and comity favored deference to the Malaysian courts. The court adjourned the Singapore enforcement proceedings, reserving costs to the hearing of the remainder of the application.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Adjournment of Singapore enforcement proceedings granted.

1.3 Case Type

Arbitration

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court adjourns enforcement of a Malaysian arbitral award in favor of Aastar Trading against Olam Global Agri, pending the outcome of setting aside proceedings in Malaysia.

1.7 Decision Date

12 January 2025

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Aastar Trading Pte Ltd	Applicant	Corporation	Adjournment of enforcement proceedings granted	Neutral	Prem Gurbani of DennisMathiew Tan Hui Tsing of DennisMathiew Deborah Koh Leng Hoon of DennisMathiew
Olam Global Agri Pte Ltd	Respondent	Corporation	Adjournment of enforcement proceedings granted	Won	Corina Song Swee Lian of Allen & Gledhill LLP Daniel Liang Junhong of Allen & Gledhill LLP Thomas Benjamin Lawrence of Allen & Gledhill LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Kristy Tan	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Prem Gurbani	DennisMathiew
Tan Hui Tsing	DennisMathiew
Deborah Koh Leng Hoon	DennisMathiew
Corina Song Swee Lian	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Daniel Liang Junhong	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Thomas Benjamin Lawrence	Allen & Gledhill LLP

4. Facts

Aastar and Olam entered into two contracts for the sale of Indonesian Refined, Bleached and Deodorised Palm Olein.
Disputes arose regarding cargo readiness and load port declarations.
Aastar commenced PORAM arbitral proceedings against Olam for breach of contract.
The Tribunal issued Arbitration Final Award No A442 in favor of Aastar.
Olam filed an appeal against the First Tier Award.
Aastar submitted new evidence in the form of letters purportedly issued by Aastar’s Indonesian suppliers.
Olam disputed the authenticity of the letters.
The Final Appeal Award was issued in favor of Aastar.
Olam applied to the Malaysian High Court to set aside the Final Appeal Award.

5. Formal Citations

Aastar Trading Pte Ltd v Olam Global Agri Pte Ltd, Originating Application No 901 of 2024 (Summons No 2764 of 2024), [2025] SGHC 5

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2022-04-20	Aastar and Olam entered into two sales contracts.
2022-06-01	Aastar made several non-compliant load port declarations.
2022-06-30	Parties agreed to reduce the quantity of RBDPL to 27,500MT.
2022-07-02	Vessel arrived at Kuala Tanjung and tendered its Notice of Readiness.
2022-07-04	Aastar sought to make changes to its load port nominations twice.
2022-07-06	Olam requested Aastar to commence loading immediately.
2022-07-07	Aastar declared cargo readiness for loading the Vessel at Kuala Tanjung.
2022-07-07	Vessel departed from Kuala Tanjung.
2022-07-10	Olam arrested the Vessel in Malaysia.
2022-07-11	Olam wrote to Aastar regarding failure to have cargo ready.
2022-07-12	Aastar stated it was ready to load cargo on 7 July 2022.
2022-08-04	Olam informed Aastar that its on-sale buyers had terminated their contract.
2022-08-05	Aastar accepted Olam’s repudiation of the Sales Contracts.
2022-08-10	Aastar notified Olam of its intention to commence PORAM arbitral proceedings.
2023-09-27	Tribunal in the First Tier Arbitration issued Arbitration Final Award No A442.
2023-10-24	Olam filed an appeal against the First Tier Award.
2023-11-16	Appeal board constituted.
2023-12-14	Olam submitted its Points of Appeal.
2024-01-18	Aastar submitted its Points of Defence.
2024-02-12	Olam submitted its Points of Reply.
2024-03-14	Aastar submitted its Rejoinder to Olam’s Points of Reply.
2024-05-20	Oral hearing for the parties to present arguments was held before the Appeal Board.
2024-05-21	Oral hearing for the parties to present arguments was held before the Appeal Board.
2024-05-27	Olam wrote to the Appeal Board reiterating that it was a critical issue in the dispute between the parties whether Aastar had cargo ready to load the Vessel within the delivery period.
2024-05-28	Olam filed its Closing Submissions.
2024-06-18	Appeal Board declared the Appeal proceedings closed without ruling on Olam’s Application to the Appeal Board.
2024-08-08	Final Appeal Award was issued.
2024-08-13	Dissenting member of the Appeal Board issued a dissenting opinion.
2024-09-05	Aastar filed HC/OA 901/2024 for permission to enforce the Final Appeal Award.
2024-09-06	An order granting Aastar permission to enforce the Final Appeal Award was made.
2024-09-10	Singapore Enforcement Order served by Aastar on Olam.
2024-09-24	Olam filed an application in the High Court of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia for the setting aside of the Final Appeal Award.
2024-09-24	Olam filed HC/SUM 2764/2024 in Singapore, seeking an adjournment of the proceedings for the enforcement of the Final Appeal Award.
2024-12-12	Hearing on SUM 2764/2024.
2025-01-13	Full grounds of decision to make the adjournment order set out.

7. Legal Issues

Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Award
- Outcome: Enforcement proceedings adjourned pending the outcome of setting aside proceedings in the seat of arbitration.
- Category: Substantive
Adjournment of Enforcement Proceedings
- Outcome: Adjournment granted.
- Category: Procedural
Breach of Natural Justice
- Outcome: Court found that it was properly arguable that the Majority had not applied their mind to the issue of the authenticity of the Letters.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Enforcement of Arbitral Award
Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

Arbitration
Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards

11. Industries

Commodities Trading

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Man Diesel Turbo SE v IM Skaugen Marine Services Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2019] 4 SLR 537	Singapore	Cited for the principle that Article VI of the New York Convention strikes a compromise between promoting the enforceability of foreign arbitral awards and preserving judicial oversight over awards.
IPCO (Nigeria) Ltd v Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation	N/A	Yes	[2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 326	N/A	Cited for the principle that the enforcement court will consider whether the setting aside application before the seat court is brought bona fide and not simply as a delaying tactic.
AIC Ltd v Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria	N/A	Yes	[2020] Bus LR 627	N/A	Cited for the principle that the enforcement court will consider whether the setting aside application before the seat court is brought bona fide and not simply as a delaying tactic.
Consilient Health Ltd v Gedeon Richter plc	N/A	Yes	[2022] EWHC 1744 (Ch)	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the enforcement court will consider whether the setting aside application before the seat court is brought bona fide and not simply as a delaying tactic.
Continental Transfert Technique Limited v The Federal Government of Nigeria and others	N/A	Yes	[2010] EWHC 780 (Comm)	England and Wales	Cited as an example of a case where the setting aside application involved delaying tactics due to the timing of the commencement of the proceedings.
Soleh Boneh International Ltd and another v Government of the Republic of Uganda and National Housing Corporation	N/A	Yes	[1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 208	N/A	Cited for the principle that at the stage of the adjournment application, the enforcement court does not engage in a detailed assessment of the facts or legal arguments in the setting aside proceedings.
Dowans Holding SA and another v Tanzania Electric Supply Co Ltd	N/A	Yes	[2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 475	N/A	Cited for the principle that the merits of the setting aside application are assessed on a sliding scale that runs from manifest invalidity to manifest validity of the award.
Travis Coal Restructured Holdings LLC v Essar Global Fund Ltd	N/A	Yes	[2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 494	N/A	Cited as an example where the court adjourned the English enforcement proceedings despite taking the view that the setting aside proceedings in New York lacked realistic prospects of success.
Dardana Ltd v Yukos Oil Co	N/A	Yes	[2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 326	N/A	Cited as an example where the court granted an adjournment of the enforcement proceedings without any order for security because the evidence did not show any likelihood that the defendant would move funds to make enforcement more difficult.
BAZ v BBA and others and other matters	High Court	Yes	[2020] 5 SLR 266	Singapore	Cited for the principle that Art VI of the New York Convention and s 31(5) of the IAA already account for the seat court’s primacy and supervisory jurisdiction in reviewing an award.
Sacofa Sdn Bhd v Super Sea Cable Networks Pte Ltd and another	High Court	Yes	[2024] SGHC 54	Singapore	Cited for the principle that Art VI of the New York Convention and s 31(5) of the IAA already account for the seat court’s primacy and supervisory jurisdiction in reviewing an award.
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 it is generally for each enforcing court to determine for itself what weight and significance should be ascribed to the progress of an active challenge in the court of the seat.
Hulley Enterprises Ltd and others v Russian Federation	N/A	Yes	[2021] 1 WLR 3429	N/A	Cited for the principle that delay in the ability to enforce an award is itself a form of prejudice to the award creditor.
BZW and another v BZV	High Court	Yes	[2022] 1 SLR 1080	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the specific rule allegedly breached would be the fair hearing rule.
Master Mulia Sdn Bhd v Sigur Rus Sdn Bhd	N/A	Yes	[2020] 12 MLJ 198	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that the failure to consider an issue would have had a material effect on the outcome of the arbitration.
AKM v AKN and another and other matters	High Court	Yes	[2014] 4 SLR 245	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a general statement by a tribunal that it has considered a party’s submissions cannot in itself resolve the issue of whether the tribunal actually did so.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
International Arbitration Act 1994	Singapore
Arbitration Act 2005 (No 646 of 2005) (M’sia)	Malaysia

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Arbitration
Enforcement
Adjournment
Setting Aside
Foreign Award
Cargo Readiness
PORAM
International Arbitration Act
New York Convention
Bona Fide
Comity

15.2 Keywords

arbitration
enforcement
foreign award
adjournment
setting aside
singapore
malaysia

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Arbitration	90
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments	90
International Commercial Arbitration	60
Breach of Contract	50
Private International Law	30

16. Subjects

Arbitration
Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards
International Arbitration Law