Medipas LLC & Anor v Erdenet Mining Corporation SOE

[2026] SGHC 97 High Court (General Division) 7 May 2026 • HC/OA 535/2025 ( HC/SUM 2132/2025 ) • 62 min read
23 cases cited (18 SG, 5 foreign)

Catchwords

Arbitration — Agreement — Governing law Arbitration — Arbitrability and public policy Arbitration — Enforcement — Singapore award Arbitration — Conflict of laws — Governing law of underlying contract Arbitration — Conflict of laws — Governing law of arbitration agreement

Practice Areas

Arbitration

Judges (1)

Wong Li Kok, Alex Delivered

Counsel (7)

Drew & Napier LLC Firm Sharpe & Jagger LLC Firm John Thomas George Counsel Respondent Loh Renn Lee Daniel Counsel Respondent Loh Tian Kai Counsel Respondent Mahesh Rai s/o Vedprakash Rai Counsel Respondent Samuel Richard Sharpe Counsel Applicant

Parties (3)

Erdenet Mining Corporation SOE Respondent Medical International Promotion Association Applicant Medipas LLC Applicant

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.

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?

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

Arbitration Act (Cap 10)
International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A)
s 19
Penal Code (Cap 224)

Cases Cited (23)

SG (2)
[2009] SGHC 13 [2018] SGHC 172
SLR (16)
[2007] 1 SLR(R) 597 [2008] 3 SLR(R) 1029 [2009] 3 SLR(R) 936 [2011] 4 SLR 739 [2014] 1 SLR 372 [2016] 1 SLR 373 [2017] 2 SLR 372 [2017] 3 SLR 267 [2017] 3 SLR 357 [2020] 1 SLR 1043 [2020] 1 SLR 456 [2020] 5 SLR 184 [2021] 3 SLR 22 [2022] 3 SLR 502 [2022] 5 SLR 393 [2023] 1 SLR 349
UK (5)
[1999] QB 740 [1999] QB 785 [2000] 1 QB 288 [2013] 1 WLR 102 [2020] 1 WLR 4117

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.

Read on eLitigation

Source: eLitigation ([2026] SGHC 97)