Zhejiang Crystal-Optech Co., Ltd. v Moveon Technologies Pte. Ltd.

Zhejiang Crystal-Optech Co Ltd (COT), a Chinese optics manufacturer, and Moveon Technologies Pte Ltd, a Singapore company, set up a Singapore joint venture, Crystal-Moveon Technologies Pte Ltd (CMOT), under agreements dated 7 October 2021 to work on an Apple lens project. Their agreements provided for CIETAC arbitration at its Shanghai branch under Chinese law. Apple ended the project around June 2022, and CMOT was wound up on COT's application on 11 March 2024. Moveon settled its claims against CMOT with the liquidators, who agreed to admit its proof of debt for S$19,423,680.54, and the court approved the compromise.

In July 2025 COT began a CIETAC arbitration against Moveon and applied for emergency relief. Moveon received papers in Chinese, asked for more time and for English, was refused, and did not attend the emergency arbitrator's hearing on 7 August 2025. An interim award of 12 August 2025 ordered Moveon not to receive its disputed claim of S$19,811,240.76 from CMOT's liquidation pending the final award, but refused to suspend the winding up. COT obtained permission from the High Court on 29 August 2025 to enforce the interim award in HC/OA 958/2025, and Moveon applied in HC/SUM 2678/2025 to set that order aside under s 31 of the International Arbitration Act 1994.

1. Whether the emergency arbitrator had power to grant interim measures under the applicable law or the parties' agreement, failing which the award exceeded the submission to arbitration under s 31(2)(d)
2. Whether Moveon was unable to present its case before the emergency arbitrator
3. Whether the dispute was not arbitrable because of CMOT's insolvency
4. Whether enforcing the interim award would be contrary to Singapore public policy

The interim award was an arbitral award under s 27(1) of the Act, so the s 31 grounds applied. Art 23(2) of the CIETAC Rules allows emergency relief only in accordance with the applicable law or the parties' agreement. The applicable law was the law of the seat, Chinese law; the law of the place of enforcement cannot confer powers on a tribunal. Accepting Moveon's expert, the court found that Chinese law reserves property, evidence and conduct preservation measures to the courts, that Chinese legislative policy has deliberately not given tribunals such powers, and that silence in the law was not a grant of power. Merely agreeing to CIETAC arbitration was not the separate agreement Art 23(2) requires, and the parties made none. Purporting to exercise a power it did not possess meant the emergency arbitrator exceeded its authority.

The other grounds failed. Chinese was the default language under the rules Moveon agreed to, it was warned of the consequences of not participating, it did not respond as promised, and its proposed arguments would not reasonably have changed the outcome; it could also seek variation from the full tribunal. The arbitration concerned the joint venture partners' contractual obligations, not rights arising from CMOT's insolvency, so Larsen Oil and Gas Pte Ltd v Petroprod Ltd [2011] 3 SLR 414 did not make it non-arbitrable. The interim award did not relitigate the approved compromise and did not reach the very high public policy threshold.

The High Court allowed Moveon's application, refused enforcement of the interim award under s 31(2)(d) of the International Arbitration Act 1994, and set aside the enforcement order, holding that the emergency arbitrator lacked power to grant the relief. Moveon was awarded 60% of its standard costs because of misconceived points it had taken.