Enforcement of foreign arbitration awards requires strict compliance with procedural mandates, including certified translations of arbitration agreements. Non-compliance renders the order for enforcement void.

Introduction

[1] The parties had in 2014 executed a Joint Venture Agreement and a Share Transfer Agreement dated 29 April 2014 with an express provision that any disputes thereunder will be dealt with via arbitration in China in accordance with the laws of China. Disputes then arose, which were referred to arbitration, which led to an arbitration Award dated 30 June 2016 handed down in favour of the Applicant herein with the Respondent being ordered to make payments to the Applicant (hereinafter referred to as "the said arbitration Award").

[2] For the purposes of this application and judgment, the factual matrix of the dispute between the parties is immaterial.

[3] Relying then on s 38 of the Arbitration Act 2005 as well as O 69 r 8 of the Rules of Court 2012, the Applicant filed an application via this Originating Summons to have the said Arbitration Award recognised as binding and be enforced by entry as a judgment in terms of the Award.

[4] The Applicant thereafter obtained an Order for substituted service and subsequently filed an affidavit of service confirming service of the cause papers in accordance with the Order for substituted service.

[5] The Court then fixed the Originating Summons for hearing on 8 August 2024. Learned Counsel for the Applicant appeared on the hearing date and, with the aid of their skeletal submissions, submitted that all procedural requirements of s 38 of the Arbitration Act 2005 and O 69 of the Rules of Court 2012 had been complied with and sought an Order in terms of encl 1. The Applicant had on 7 August 2024 filed a supplemental affidavit ("Afidavit tambahan") annexing copies of the joint venture agreement and the share transfer agreement, which was in the Chinese language with an uncertified English translation.

[6] Insofar as the said arbitration Award is concerned, a certified copy of the same in the English language has been attached to the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons.

[7] Based on the submission that all procedural requirements had been complied with, the Court granted Order in terms of the Originating Summons on 8 August 2024 and duly recognised and enforced the said arbitration Award.

[8] Despite the Court having made the Order on 8 August 2024, one week later, on 15 August 2024, learned Counsel for the Applicant strangely affirms and files a supplemental affidavit ("Afidavit tambahan"- encl 14) attaching again thereto copies of the joint venture and share transfer agreement but this time with a certified English translation and praying for an Order in terms of the Originating Summons in encl 1 (even though the Order had already been made the week before).

[9] Thereafter, on 17 December 2024, the Respondent appoints solicitors, Messrs Karpal Singh & Co which on the same date file encl 19 which was the Respondent's application for a declaration that the Order dated 8 August 2024 was invalid or alternatively to set the same aside pursuant to s 39 of the Arbitration Act 2005 and O 69 r 8(7)(a) of the Rules of Court 2012.

[10] Having heard learned Counsel with the aid of their written submissions, I had on 19 March 2025, granted the Respondent's application in encl 19 and declared the Order dated 8 August 2024 null and void and set it aside. The Court will hereinunder provide the reasons for doing so and also why I decided to consequently strike out encl 1 with liberty to file afresh.

The Parties' Respective Contentions/Submissions

The Respondent's Contentions/Su