Recent decisions in England, Singapore, and the UAE are reshaping the enforcement landscape for foreign judgments and arbitral awards.
The enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards has always been one of the most technically demanding areas of international litigation. Recent decisions in England, Singapore, and the UAE have introduced new considerations that practitioners and their clients need to understand.
In England, the Supreme Court's decision in Privatbank v Kolomoisky has clarified the circumstances in which a foreign judgment obtained by fraud will be refused enforcement. The court confirmed that the fraud exception applies where the judgment was obtained by fraud on the foreign court, not merely where the underlying transaction was fraudulent. This is a narrower test than some practitioners had assumed, and it means that defendants seeking to resist enforcement on fraud grounds face a high evidential threshold.
In Singapore, the Court of Appeal has expanded the grounds on which enforcement of an arbitral award may be resisted on public policy grounds. The court held that an award that requires a party to perform an act that would be illegal under Singapore law may be refused enforcement even if the illegality was not raised before the tribunal. This decision has significant implications for awards involving regulated activities in Singapore, including financial services and real estate transactions.
In the UAE, recent legislative changes have significantly improved the prospects for enforcement of foreign awards in the DIFC courts. The DIFC Courts now have jurisdiction to enforce awards against assets located anywhere in the UAE, not merely within the DIFC itself. This change, combined with the UAE's accession to the New York Convention, makes the DIFC one of the most enforcement-friendly jurisdictions in the Middle East.
For clients with enforcement needs across these jurisdictions, the practical implications are significant. England remains the gold standard for enforcement of commercial awards, but the fraud exception is narrower than many assume. Singapore is becoming more cautious about awards with regulatory dimensions. And the UAE is rapidly becoming a viable enforcement destination for awards against Middle Eastern respondents.
This article represents the personal analysis of the author and does not constitute legal advice. It should not be relied upon as a substitute for specific legal counsel on your particular circumstances. If you have a legal matter you wish to discuss, please contact us directly.
