Singapore court refuses enforcement where PRC law reserves interim measures to courts

The decisive question in the judgment was whether the emergency arbitrator had power to grant interim relief under either “the applicable law” or the parties’ agreement, as required by article 23(2) of the 2024 CIETAC Rules.

The court held that PRC law, as the law of the seat, was the only relevant “applicable law”. It also held that PRC law did not confer the necessary power on an emergency arbitrator. Finally, it held that the parties had not expressly agreed to confer the power. It determined that the emergency arbitrator had therefore exercised a power he did not possess, exceeding the scope of the submission to arbitration as required under section 31(2)(d) of Singapore’s International Arbitration Act 1994 (IAA) to obtain enforcement.

Zhejiang Crystal-Optech Co Ltd (COT), a Chinese manufacturer, and Moveon Technologies Pte Ltd (Moveon), a Singapore-based producer of polymer optics, entered into a cooperation framework agreement (CFA) and a joint venture agreement (JVA) in 2021 and incorporated a Singapore joint venture company, Crystal-Moveon Technologies Pte Ltd (CMOT).

The venture concerned the manufacture of components for an Apple project known as Project Viserion, which Apple terminated in 2022. A dispute arose over expenses Moveon had incurred during the venture. A proceeding to wind up CMOT was commenced in 2024.

In July 2025, COT commenced a CIETAC arbitration against Moveon under the CFA and JVA and applied to CIETAC’s Shanghai Sub-Commission for emergency relief. China was the seat, and the proceedings were subject to the 2024 CIETAC Rules.

COT sought an order preventing Moveon from receiving distributions in respect of its proof of debt pending determination of the arbitration. In the alternative, COT asked for CMOT's winding-up proceedings to be suspended.

On 12 August 2025, the emergency arbitrator granted the first form of relief, requiring Moveon to maintain the status quo over the disputed sum, but declined to order the suspension of CMOT’s winding-up process on the basis that it would affect non-parties not bound by the arbitration agreement.

COT then obtained permission from the Singapore High Court, on an ‘ex parte’ basis, to enforce the emergency arbitrator’s order. Moveon then applied under section 31 of Singapore’s International Arbitration Act (IAA) to set aside that enforcement order on the grounds, amongst others, that the emergency arbitrator lacked the power to grant the relief and therefore exceeded the scope of the submission to arbitration, contrary to s31(2)(d) of the IAA.

The Singapore High Court held that, for the purposes of article 23(2) of the CIETAC Rules, the "applicable law" referred exclusively to PRC law as the law of the seat, and that the law of the place of enforcement could not itself confer power on an arbitral tribunal or emergency arbitrator.

It concluded that PRC law reserved all forms of preservation measures, including conduct preservation, to the courts, and did not positively confer any such power on arbitral tribunals or emergency arbitrators. Nor could the parties’ deemed consent to the CIETAC Rules fill that gap: article 23(2) required a distinct agreement, over and above acceptance of the institutional rules, before an emergency arbitrator could be empowered to grant interim relief.

Since neither the applicable law nor the parties' agreement conferred the requisite power, the emergency arbitrator had purported to exercise a power he did not possess, and the interim award exceeded the scope of the submission to arbitration.

Wee Jian Ang, arbitration expert at Pinsent Masons in Singapore, commented: “This decision is a reminder that the choice of seat is critical. It is the ‘lex arbitri’ that ultimately determines whether an emergency arbitrator has the power to act. If the seat does not recognise that power, the resulting award may be unenforceable”.

Having worked with numerous PRC clients, Wee Jian added: “Where a PRC seat is non-negotiable, as is sometimes the case, the parties may wish – given the Singapore courts’ interpretation of article 23(2) of the CIETAC Rules – to include an express contractual provision confirming that an emergency arbitrator may be appointed, that the emergency arbitrator or tribunal may order interim measures, and that the parties will be bound by any such measures.”

Rachel Turner, arbitration expert at Pinsent Masons in Shanghai, commented: "The judgment has been the subject of intense debate within the Chinese arbitration community. The conclusion, by the Singapore High Court, that an additional layer of party authorisation is required to confer the power to grant interim measures under the CIETAC rules in a mainland China seated arbitration would seem somewhat artificial or at least impractical. The sole function of an emergency arbitrator, as referred to in the agreed CIETAC Rules, is to grant urgent interim relief before the tribunal is constituted. The more natural reading is that, by agreeing to the CIETAC Rules, the parties have accepted the full scope of the emergency arbitrator's mandate, including the authority to order interim measures.”

Turner added that while it has previously been reported that interim measures granted by arbitral tribunals or emergency arbitrators have been upheld by Chinese courts – viewed by many in the Chinese arbitration community as an indication of the direction of travel in mainland China – the interpretation presented by the Singapore courts introduces a degree of uncertainty.

“The position on enforcement of a mainland seated interim award or emergency arbitrator decision in mainland China and elsewhere remains a complex area of law that will, no doubt, be subject to further judicial consideration and debate,” she added. “Absent a clear, bespoke system – such as the arrangement between Hong Kong SAR and mainland China that permits court assistance for arbitral interim measures – parties are advised to proceed with caution, always consider potential jurisdictions where interim and final awards may be enforced and consider additional drafting measures.”