As Singapore continues to strengthen its reputation as a leading hub for arbitration and cross-border dispute resolution, more parties are turning to its courts to enforce foreign arbitral awards.
While Singapore is known for its strong pro-enforcement stance, parties must also understand that access to its legal system comes with strict procedural responsibilities.
In this article, we breakdown a recent Court of Appeal decision that underscores the importance of complying with court orders and clarifies that even the pro-enforcement policy of the New York Convention cannot protect parties who fail to follow local procedural rules.
The case: Wuhu Ruyi v European Topsoho [2025] SGCA 32
The case arose when Wuhu Ruyi Xinbo ("Xinbo") sought to enforce a foreign arbitral award against European Topsoho Sàrl ("ETS"), a related company and subsidiary of its joint venture. The arbitration had been conducted at the Beihai Court of International Arbitration and described as a "walkover", leading ETS's bankruptcy curator to allege that the award was a sham designed to give Xinbo priority over other creditors.
During the enforcement proceedings in Singapore, ETS successfully obtained court orders requiring Xinbo to produce key documents. Xinbo repeatedly failed to fully comply. This led to the issuance of an "unless order", essentially a final warning to comply with the court's directions by a specific deadline, or the application would be dismissed. When Xinbo did not fully comply, the High Court dismissed its enforcement application. Xinbo then appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Key takeaways from the Court of Appeal's decision
1. Strict enforcement of unless orders
Xinbo argued that the court should conduct a fresh assessment of whether enforcing the unless order was "proportionate" before dismissing its case. The Court of Appeal firmly rejected this argument. It clarified that any objections to fairness or proportionality must be raised when the unless order is first made. Once breached, the consequences, typically dismissal, will follow.
The court emphasised that its discretion to excuse non-compliance is limited to rare situations involving minor technical breaches or substantial compliance. It will not extend to deliberate or partial compliance, as this would undermine the authority of court orders and encourage selective non-compliance.
2. New York Convention does not grant immunity from local procedural rules
Xinbo also argued that dismissing its enforcement application went against Singapore's obligations under the New York Convention. The Court of Appeal disagreed.
The Convention (specifically Article III) allows signatory states to apply their own procedural rules when enforcing foreign awards. In this case, Xinbo's dismissal was not due to a refusal to enforce the award on substantive grounds but was a direct consequence of its failure to comply with Singapore's court orders. The court stressed that parties who choose to rely on Singapore's pro-enforcement framework must also respect its procedural requirements.
What this means for parties
This decision is a strong reminder that while Singapore is committed to supporting arbitration and enforcing foreign awards, procedural discipline remains paramount. Parties must comply fully and promptly with all court directions.
For parties seeking to enforce foreign arbitral awards in Singapore, this case highlights the importance of engaging legal counsel early, understanding local procedural obligations, and ensuring compliance at every stage.
Our team regularly advises on cross-border arbitration, enforcement of awards, and related court applications. If you have questions about your rights and obligations, or if you would like to prepare for potential enforcement proceedings, we are here to help.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
