Medipas LLC & Anor v Erdenet Mining Corporation SOE
Featured in the weekly digest — week of 4–10 May 2026 →
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Wong Li Kok, Alex |
| Charges / claim | Arbitration |
| Counsel | Drew & Napier LLC, Sharpe & Jagger LLC, John Thomas George, Loh Renn Lee Daniel, Loh Tian Kai, Mahesh Rai s/o Vedprakash Rai, Samuel Richard Sharpe |
Source: [2026] SGHC 97, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (7)
Case Significance
In Medipas LLC & Anor v Erdenet Mining Corporation SOE [2026] SGHC 97, decided on 7 May 2026, Justice Wong Li Kok, Alex of the High Court General Division ruled on an attempt by the respondent, Erdenet Mining Corporation SOE, to set aside leave granted to enforce a Singapore International Arbitration Centre award in favour of the applicants, Medipas LLC and Medical International Promotion Association. The underlying dispute arose from agreements for the operation and management of a hospital in Mongolia. The respondent's central contention was that no valid arbitration agreement existed, raising issues of governing law of both the underlying contract and the arbitration agreement, as well as arbitrability and public policy under the Arbitration Act and International Arbitration Act.
[2026] SGHC 97 explained
Medipas LLC & Anor v Erdenet Mining Corporation SOE ([2026] SGHC 97) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 7 May 2026. It is categorised under Arbitration. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.
What is [2026] SGHC 97 about?
Medipas LLC & Anor v Erdenet Mining Corporation SOE ([2026] SGHC 97) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Arbitration — Agreement — Governing law”, “Arbitration — Arbitrability and public policy”, “Arbitration — Enforcement — Singapore award”, and “Arbitration — Conflict of laws — Governing law of underlying contract”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2026] SGHC 97 consider?
The judgment refers to Arbitration Act (Cap 10), International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A), International Arbitration Act (Cap 10), and Penal Code (Cap 224). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
Summary
Medipas LLC and its parent organisation obtained a SIAC arbitration award against Erdenet Mining Corporation SOE, a Mongolian state-owned entity, arising from agreements for the operation and management of a hospital in Mongolia, and secured leave to enforce the award in Singapore. Erdenet applied to set aside the leave order, contending there was no valid arbitration agreement and that enforcement would be contrary to Singapore public policy due to alleged criminal conduct in Mongolia connected to the agreements. The court dismissed the application, upholding the leave order on the basis that a valid arbitration agreement existed and the public policy exception was not made out.
How did the Singapore High Court address the validity of an arbitration agreement in the Medipas v Erdenet Mining case ([2026] SGHC 97)?
In Medipas LLC v Erdenet Mining Corporation SOE [2026] SGHC 97, Justice Wong Li Kok, Alex upheld the enforcement of a SIAC award arising from a Mongolian hospital management dispute, rejecting Erdenet Mining's argument that no valid arbitration agreement existed and addressing governing law and public policy under Singapore's arbitration statutes.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (23)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Legal concepts & references
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGHC 97)