Vietnam National Industry – Energy Group v Joint Stock Company (Power Machines – ZTL, LMZ, Electrosila Energomachexport)

Joint Stock Company (Power Machines – ZTL, LMZ, Electrosila Energomachexport) (PM) won a final award in SIAC Arbitration No 274 of 2019 against Vietnam National Industry – Energy Group (PVN). PM sought enforcement in Moscow and obtained leave to enforce in Singapore on 13 February 2024. PVN applied in HC/SUM 988/2024 to set aside that leave and in HC/OA 346/2024 to set aside part of the award. On 23 July 2024 the High Court found a breach of the fair hearing rule but remitted the issue to the tribunal, suspended the setting-aside proceedings, and ordered that PM take no steps to enforce pursuant to the Singapore leave order in the meantime. Both sides appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Russian courts allowed recognition and enforcement, issued a writ of execution, and rejected PVN's repeated attempts to stop enforcement. On 12 March 2025 the tribunal issued a remission award leaving its finding unchanged, and PVN filed HC/OA 444/2025 to set it aside. In Originating Application No 520 of 2025, PVN sought an injunction restraining PM from enforcing the awards anywhere in the world until all the Singapore setting-aside proceedings and appeals were concluded. It relied on a claimed contractual right linked to the Model Law, an implied term against ousting the Singapore courts' jurisdiction, the 23 July 2024 order, and the ends of justice.

1. Whether PVN had a contractual or statutory right to prevent enforcement of the awards elsewhere while they were said to be suspended
2. Whether enforcement abroad breached an implied term of the arbitration agreement or the court's 23 July 2024 order
3. Whether the ends of justice required a worldwide anti-enforcement injunction pending the appeals

Art 36 of the Model Law does not have the force of law in Singapore, and its counterpart, s 31(2)(f) of the International Arbitration Act 1994, only gives the Singapore court, as an enforcement court, a discretion to refuse enforcement here. Nothing in the arbitration clause gave PVN a right to stop enforcement abroad. In any case no order suspended the awards; the 23 July 2024 order suspended the setting-aside application for the remission, and that ended once the tribunal decided the remitted issue.

There was no basis to imply a term that PM could not oust the Singapore courts' jurisdiction, and enforcement abroad would not do so, because whether to enforce in a foreign jurisdiction is for the courts there alone. The 23 July 2024 order plainly restrained only enforcement under the Singapore leave order; the court described PVN's reading as a shot from the hip that was way wide off the mark.

On the ends of justice, under Art V(1)(e) of the New York Convention an enforcement court may, but need not, give effect to a seat court's decision setting an award aside, as the Court of Appeal explained in The Republic of India v Deutsche Telekom AG [2024] 1 SLR 56. Even a successful appeal would leave the Russian court free to decide. PVN's suggestion that the Russian courts were helping PM circumvent the Convention was unfounded, and granting the injunction would itself be inconsistent with the Convention. By choosing a Singapore seat, PVN had accepted that regime. The court found PVN's conduct close to warranting indemnity costs, but not quite.

The High Court dismissed PVN's application for a worldwide anti-enforcement injunction and ordered PVN to pay costs fixed at $25,000 inclusive of disbursements, refusing PM's request for indemnity costs.