Singapore’s stance on enforcement of foreign awards set aside at the seat: some recent developments

Abstract It may seem like an arbitral award once set aside by the supervisory court at the seat is done and dusted, and that the award no longer exists legally. However—more often than not—the aggrieved party will still try its luck and file a separate application for enforcement in different jurisdictions where the assets of the award-debtor are situated. In those circumstances, countries follow distinct practices wherein some put significant weight on the decision of the seat court and others plainly disregard it. Noteworthily, the supervisory court at the seat is known to have primary jurisdiction whereas the enforcing court is supposed to have secondary jurisdiction. In this article, the author will elaborate on the provisions that entail supremacy of the seat court, and explore the legal implications of a successful ‘second bite at the cherry’, all the while briefly examining the approach of Singaporean courts concerning the enforcement of awards annulled at the arbitration seat.