Section 30(1) of the International Arbitration Act (IAA) sets out the documents that must be produced to the High Court by a party seeking to enforce a foreign arbitral award. The manner of complying with section 30 is prescribed by Order 69A rule 6 of the Singapore Rules of Court. Section 31 of the IAA sets out the grounds on which the court, on the application of a party, may refuse to enforce a foreign arbitral award. Those grounds include section 31(4)(b) of the IAA, where the enforcement of an award would be contrary to the public policy of Singapore.

In Aloe Vera of America, Inc v Asianic Food (S) Pte Ltd and another [2006] 3 SLR (R) 174 (Aloe Vera) and Denmark Skibstekniske Konsulenter A's I Likvidation (formerly known as Knud Hansen A/S) v Ultrapolis 300 Investments Ltd (formerly known as Ultrapolis 3000 Theme Park Investments) [2010] SGHC 108 (Denmark v Ultrapolis), the Singapore High Court held that the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award under section 30 of the IAA and Order 69A rule 6 of the Singapore Rules of Court was a mechanistic process that does not require a judicial investigation by the court enforcing the award.

The applicants sought to enforce a foreign award made in their favour by a three-member Danish arbitral tribunal against the respondent, Soh Kim Wat (Soh). Soh made an application to stay the enforcement proceedings pending resolution of an earlier suit filed by him, challenging the final arbitral award. Alternatively, he sought to have the two actions consolidated.

The applicants argued that Soh was taking every possible procedural step and availing himself of every technicality to delay matters. Soh argued that, pursuant to section 31(4)(b) of the IAA, enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of Singapore.

The High Court dismissed Soh's application to stay the proceedings and held that the matters raised by him in his suit challenging the final arbitral award should have been raised before the Danish arbitral tribunal.

The court found that the applicants had satisfied the formal requirements set out in section 30 of the IAA and Order 69A rule 6 of the Rules of Court. However, the court expressed reservations that the rule laid down in Aloe Vera, and recently endorsed in Denmark v Ultrapolis, that the only examination that a court must make of documents provided pursuant to Order 69A rule 6 of the Rules of Court is a formalistic and not a substantive one, was not consistent with other cases, particularly the recent English Court of Appeal decision in Dallah Estate and Tourism Holding Company v The Ministry of Religious Affairs, Government of Pakistan [2009] EWCA Civ 755 (Dallah). In Dallah, the Court of Appeal ruled that proceedings under section 103(2) of the English Arbitration Act 1996, the equivalent of section 31(2) of the IAA, should take the form of a full re-hearing of the relevant issues and not merely a review of the tribunal's decision (see Legal update, Court of Appeal upholds Dallah decision). (Note that the Court of Appeal's decision in Dallah has been appealed to the UK Supreme Court and judgment is now awaited.)

The court noted that it was worth remembering that, just as parties who have chosen arbitration must live with their arbitrator "good, bad or indifferent", the courts in Singapore may be called upon to enforce "bad" awards from another jurisdiction.

As the court was not required to make a ruling on its reservations about Aloe Vera and Denmark v Ultrapolis in the present case, the rule laid down in those cases currently stands as Singapore law. However, it will be interesting to see which approach is adopted by the Court of Appeal should it be asked to decide on this issue in the future.