Singapore High Court: Criteria for Adjourning the Enforcement of an Arbitral Award

In Aastar Trading Pte Ltd (Aastar) v Olam Global Agri Pte Ltd (Olam) [2025] SGHC 5, the Singapore High Court (SGHC) granted an adjournment of enforcement of a Malaysian arbitral award until the Malaysian courts had an opportunity to decide on its annulment.

The dispute stemmed from a sales contract where Aastar, the seller, which was responsible for notifying Olam of the cargo’s readiness. Olam failed to take delivery and terminated the contract, leading to a dispute about whether the goods were ready and if Aastar had properly issued its readiness notice. Aastar initiated arbitration in Malaysia, where Aastar was awarded damages after the tribunal found that it had made the goods available on time. Olam, however, challenged the authenticity of the documents Aastar presented as proof - a challenge disregarded by the tribunal’s majority.

Olam later applied to the Malaysian High Court to set aside the award for a breach of natural justice and sought an adjournment from the SGHC for enforcement in Singapore. The SGHC relied on Article VI of the New York Convention and Section 31(5) of Singapore’s International Arbitration Act (IAA) to grant the adjournment, allowing the enforcement courts to suspend enforcement pending an annulment decision. Citing Man Diesel Turbo SE v IM Skaugen Marine Services Pte Ltd [2019] 4 SLR 537, the court outlined key criteria for this decision. It emphasized that an annulment request must be made in good faith and not merely as a delay tactic, which Olam’s application met. The court also assessed whether the annulment request was valid or frivolous, without conducting a detailed merits review. The SGHC determined that Olam’s challenge was legitimate, as the authenticity of the documents was central to the tribunal’s decision.  The SGHC further found that adjournment would not unduly hinder Aastar’s enforcement or cause unreasonable delay. It also highlighted judicial comity, noting that enforcing the award before the Malaysian courts ruled could lead to conflicting judgments on natural justice.