CZD v CZE

[2023] SGHC 86 High Court (General Division) 5 April 2023 HC/OA 725/2022 ( HC/SUM 4435/2022,HC/RA 23/2023 )

14 cases cited (11 SG, 3 foreign) Cited by 1 case

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	5 April 2023
Judge	Chua Lee Ming
Charges / claim	Arbitration
Counsel	Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP, WongPartnership LLP, Alexander Kamsany Lee, Chang Qi-Yang, Melvin See Hsien Huei, Tan Ee Hsien, Tsin Jenny, Zheng Yangyou

Source: [2023] SGHC 86, High Court (General Division), decided 5 April 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Arbitration — Enforcement — Foreign award

Practice Areas

Arbitration

Judges (1)

Chua Lee Ming Delivered

Counsel (8)

Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP Firm WongPartnership LLP Firm Alexander Kamsany Lee Counsel for the claimant

Chang Qi-Yang Counsel for the defendant

Melvin See Hsien Huei Counsel for the claimant Tan Ee Hsien Counsel for the defendant

Tsin Jenny Counsel for the defendant

Zheng Yangyou Counsel for the claimant

Parties (2)

CZD Claimant

CZE Defendant

Case Significance

CZD v CZE [2023] SGHC 86 was decided by Chua Lee Ming J in the General Division of the High Court on 5 April 2023, in Originating Application No 725 of 2022 (with Registrar's Appeal No 23 of 2023 and Summons No 4435 of 2022). Summons No 4435 was the defendant's application to set aside an order granting the claimant permission to enforce an arbitration award made in Beijing, PRC, while RA 23 was the defendant's appeal against the Assistant Registrar's dismissal of his application to file a further affidavit. The dispute arose from a September 2017 loan agreement, and a later cooperation agreement, concerning restructuring of a PRC company. Chua Lee Ming J dismissed the defendant's appeal and his application to set aside the Enforcement Order.

Summary

This concerned the defendant's application to set aside an order permitting enforcement of an arbitration award made in Beijing, and his appeal against a refusal to file a further affidavit, arising from loan and cooperation agreements involving a PRC company. Although the claimant had failed to disclose a pending PRC application, the High Court found this inconsequential once that application was rejected. The court dismissed both the appeal and the set-aside application, penalising the non-disclosure by denying the claimant costs rather than refusing enforcement.

What did the court decide in CZD v CZE [2023] SGHC 86?

Chua Lee Ming J dismissed both the defendant's appeal (RA 23 of 2023) and his application (SUM 4435 of 2022) to set aside the order granting the claimant permission to enforce a Beijing arbitration award. The Enforcement Order therefore stood.

What was the arbitration award in CZD v CZE about ([2023] SGHC 86)?

The award was made in Beijing, People's Republic of China, arising from a September 2017 loan agreement and a later cooperation agreement under which the claimant lent sums to the defendant to terminate a variable interest entity structure and restructure a PRC company known as TargetCo.

Statutes Cited

Arbitration Act (Cap 10) Cases on this Act →

International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A) Cases on this Act →

s 29(1)

The applicable statute in AUF was the Arbitration Act (Cap 10) Cases on this Act →

Cases Cited (14)

SG (1)

[2021] SGHCR 4

SLR (10)

[2003] 3 SLR(R) 1 [2006] 3 SLR(R) 174 [2008] 4 SLR(R) 994 [2009] 4 SLR 365 [2014] 1 SLR 372 [2014] 1 SLR 814 [2016] 1 SLR 859 [2020] 5 SLR 266 [2021] 1 SLR 1045 [2021] 2 SLR 235

UK (1)

[2020] EWHC 1723

AU (1)

[2013] FCAFC 109

HK (1)

[2022] HKCFI 1270