Strandore Invest A/S v Soh Kim Wat: Enforcement of Arbitration Award & Public Policy

In Strandore Invest A/S and others v Soh Kim Wat, the Singapore High Court heard an application by Strandore Invest A/S, LKE Electric Europe A/S and MS Invest Odense A/S to enforce an arbitration award against Soh Kim Wat. Soh opposed the enforcement, arguing the underlying agreements were for a collateral purpose and enforcement would be against public policy. The High Court dismissed Soh's applications, granted the Applicants leave to enforce the Final Award and declined to discharge the Mareva injunction.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Applicants granted leave to enforce the Final Award; Respondent's applications dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court enforces arbitration award against Soh Kim Wat, dismissing his challenge based on public policy and delay tactics.

1.7 Decision Date

13 May 2010

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Strandore Invest A/S	Applicant	Corporation	Leave to enforce the Final Award granted	Won	See Tow Soo Ling of Colin Ng & Partners
LKE Electric Europe A/S	Applicant	Corporation	Leave to enforce the Final Award granted	Won	See Tow Soo Ling of Colin Ng & Partners
MS Invest Odense A/S	Applicant	Corporation	Leave to enforce the Final Award granted	Won	See Tow Soo Ling of Colin Ng & Partners
Soh Kim Wat	Respondent	Individual	Applications dismissed	Lost	Leo Cheng Suan of Infinitus Law Corporation

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Quentin Loh	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
See Tow Soo Ling	Colin Ng & Partners
Leo Cheng Suan	Infinitus Law Corporation

4. Facts

Applicants sought to enforce an arbitration award against the Respondent.
Respondent challenged the award, claiming the underlying agreements were for a collateral purpose.
Respondent previously stayed a Singapore action, citing a valid arbitration clause.
Respondent objected to the Danish arbitration proceedings on technicalities.
Respondent did not appoint an arbitrator or file a Statement of Defence.
Respondent challenged the Final Award in the City Court of Denmark, which was dismissed.
Respondent appealed to the High Court of Denmark, but the appeal was dismissed for failure to pay fees.
Respondent sold his property in Singapore after the Final Award was rendered.

5. Formal Citations

Strandore Invest A/S and others v Soh Kim Wat, Originating Summons No 19 of 2010, [2010] SGHC 151

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2003-03-22	Soh entered into Share Sale Agreements with Strandore and Odense.
2004-12-10	Soh entered into a Share Sale Agreement with LKE Europe.
2006-01-04	Applicants' solicitors sent a letter of demand to Soh.
2006-01-23	Soh's solicitors responded, stating Soh was prepared to proceed with Copenhagen Arbitration.
2006-02-21	Suit No 55 of 2006 filed and served on Soh.
2006-03-11	Soh swore an affidavit stating his intention to have disputes resolved by arbitration.
2006-05-10	S 55/2006 was stayed.
2006-06-23	Strandore, LKE Europe and Odense filed their Request for Arbitration before the DIA.
2006-06-30	DIA sent notice of the Applicants’ Request for Arbitration to Soh.
2006-11-04	Request for Arbitration served on Soh at his Malaysian office.
2006-11-08	Soh sent a letter to the DIA challenging the validity of the request for arbitration.
2006-12-29	DIA sent a letter notifying Soh of its proposal to appoint arbitrators.
2007-01-31	DIA informed parties of the appointment of the Arbitral Tribunal.
2007-02-26	Procedural Order from the Arbitral Tribunal ordering a hearing.
2007-03-06	Soh opposed the appointment of the Arbitral Tribunal.
2007-05-03	Hearing held.
2007-05-15	Arbitral Tribunal issued its Award on jurisdiction.
2007-05-24	DIA sent a letter enclosing the Arbitral Tribunal’s Award.
2007-07-16	Soh replied, objecting to the Proposed Tribunal.
2007-07-30	Applicants’ solicitor wrote to the DIA stating that their clients had no objections to the tribunal.
2007-08-09	DIA informed both parties that it “could not follow” Soh’s objections.
2007-09-06	Soh responded, repeating his objections.
2007-09-10	DIA appointed the Arbitral Tribunal.
2007-10-01	Soh replied, repeating his arguments.
2007-11-22	Soh was given an extension to submit his Statement of Defence.
2007-12-28	Soh responded by letter repeating some of his arguments.
2008-01-17	Arbitral Tribunal scheduled a hearing.
2008-03-13	Soh objected to the hearing.
2008-03-17	Hearing held.
2008-04-30	Final Award was rendered in favour of the Applicants.
2008-05-08	A copy of the Final Award was served on Soh.
2008-07-29	Applicants commenced enforcement proceedings in Singapore in OS 999/2008.
2008-07-30	Soh challenged the Final Award in the City Court of Denmark.
2008-09-24	Order for Examination of Judgement Debtor obtained.
2009-02-20	Soh set aside all orders obtained in OS 999/2008.
2009-06-25	Soh’s challenge was dismissed by the City Court, Denmark.
2009-07-13	Soh filed an appeal in the High Court of Denmark.
2009-10-08	Martua Sitorus lodged a caveat against Soh’s property.
2009-11-10	Soh commenced S 968/2009 in Singapore.
2009-11-19	Soh’s appeal to the High Court of Denmark was dismissed.
2010-01-07	Applicants filed OS 19/2010 for leave to enforce the Final Award.
2010-01-08	Applicants obtained a worldwide Mareva Injunction against Soh.
2010-01-19	Soh deposed his 1st Affidavit.
2010-01-26	Sum frozen was reduced to S$2.6 million by Belinda Ang J.
2010-02-09	Mr Lim Boon Thor produced an affidavit.
2010-04-09	The Originating Summons and Soh’s two applications came up for hearing.
2010-04-13	Soh appealed against the decision.
2010-05-14	Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

Enforcement of Arbitration Award
- Outcome: The court granted leave to enforce the arbitration award, finding no violation of public policy.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Public policy exception to enforcement
  - Validity of arbitration agreement
  - Procedural fairness in arbitration
Mareva Injunction
- Outcome: The court maintained the Mareva injunction, finding a real risk of dissipation of assets.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Risk of dissipation of assets
  - Full and frank disclosure

8. Remedies Sought

Enforcement of Arbitration Award
Monetary Damages
Mareva Injunction

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
Arbitration
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Aloe Vera of America, Inc v Asianic Food (S) Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2006] 3 SLR(R) 174	Singapore	Discusses the mechanistic process of enforcing a foreign arbitration award under s 30 IAA and O 69A r 6 RSC, but the judge expresses reservations about the extent of this approach.
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 Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2010] SGHC 108	Singapore	Endorses the approach that a s 31 challenge is a rehearing, agreeing with Dallah Estate and disagreeing with Aloe Vera to the extent it suggests otherwise.
Dallah Estate and Tourism Holding Company v The Ministry of Religious Affairs, Government of Pakistan	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2009] EWCA Civ 755	England and Wales	States that proceedings under s 103(2) of the English Arbitration Act 1996 should take the form of a full re-hearing and not a more limited review.
Svenska Petroleum Exploration AB v Government of Lithuania (No.2)	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2006] EWCA Civ 1529	England and Wales	Cited for the point that a person against whom an arbitration award has been made is not bound to challenge it before the supervisory court in order to challenge its enforcement in another jurisdiction.
PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SA	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 1 SLR(R) 597	Singapore	Interprets the phrase 'public policy' in s 31(4)(b) IAA as giving a court very limited powers of review.
Barclay-Johnson v Yuill	High Court	Yes	[1980] 1 WLR 1259	England and Wales	States that the heart and core of the Mareva injunction is the risk of the defendant removing his assets from the jurisdiction and so stultifying any judgment given by the courts in the action.
Choy Chee Keen Collin v Public Utilities Board	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1996] 3 SLR(R) 812	Singapore	Endorses Megarry VC’s view in Barclay-Johnson v Yuill regarding the risk of the defendant removing his assets from the jurisdiction.
Asian Corporate Services (SEA) Pte Ltd v Eastwest Management Ltd (Singapore Branch)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2006] 1 SLR(R) 901	Singapore	Explains the rationale for the duty to make full and frank disclosure on an ex parte application.
Siporex Trade SA v Comdel Commodities Ltd	High Court	Yes	[1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 428	England and Wales	Sets out the scope of the duty to make full disclosure.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Arbitration Award
Enforcement
Public Policy
Mareva Injunction
Dissipation of Assets
Collateral Purpose
Share Sale Agreement
Danish Institute of Arbitrators
Stay of Proceedings

15.2 Keywords

arbitration
enforcement
public policy
injunction
contract

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Arbitration	90
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments	85
International Arbitration Law	75
Contract Law	70
Share Sale Agreements	65
Commercial Disputes	60
Mareva Injunction	55
Summary Judgement	50
Injunctions	40

16. Subjects

Arbitration
Contract Law
Civil Procedure