The Singapore High Court has upheld the enforcement of a SIAC award in <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Medipas LLC v Erdenet Mining Corp SOE [2026] SGHC 97</span>, rejecting objections based on the validity and governing law of the arbitration agreement, arbitrability and public policy. The decision confirms the Singapore courts’ pro-enforcement approach and their willingness to give effect to arbitration agreements, including imperfectly drafted clauses, where the parties’ intention to arbitrate can be established.
In Medipas, the Singapore High Court dismissed multiple challenges brought by the award debtor, Erdenet Mining Corp SOE (“<span class="news-text_medium">Erdenet</span>”), and upheld enforcement of a SIAC arbitral award. A central issue was whether the parties had entered into a valid arbitration agreement. Erdenet argued that the underlying contract did not show a clear intention to arbitrate. The contract had been executed in Mongolian and Japanese, with both language versions stated to be equally valid.
The Mongolian version provided for disputes to be resolved by the “International Arbitration Court of Singapore”. Erdenet contended that Mongolian parties would understand this wording as referring to a court, rather than an arbitral institution. The Japanese version referred to “Dispute Resolution and Commercial Arbitration of Singapore”. Erdenet further argued that the arbitration agreement was governed by Mongolian law, and that Mongolian law should therefore determine whether a valid arbitration agreement existed.
Erdenet also resisted enforcement on the grounds of arbitrability and public policy. The Singapore High Court rejected all of Erdenet’s objections. It held that Singapore law governed the dispute resolution clause. The parties had not made an express choice of law for the main contract. As a result, there was no express or implied choice of governing law that could support a presumption that the same law governed the arbitration agreement.
The Court found that Singapore law had the closest connection to the arbitration agreement, as Singapore was the only jurisdiction identified in the dispute resolution clause. Applying Singapore law, the Court upheld the arbitration agreement. Relying on the principle of effective interpretation, the Court found that the only Singapore dispute resolution institution whose name approximated the phrase “International Arbitration Court of Singapore” was the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“<span class="news-text_medium">SIAC</span>”).
The parties had therefore demonstrated a clear intention to resolve their disputes by arbitration at SIAC. The Court also rejected Erdenet’s arbitrability objection. Erdenet had argued that Mongolian law gave the Mongolian courts exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving immovable property in Mongolia. The Court disagreed. It held that the dispute did not concern ownership or possession of immovable property, but rather liability for breach of a contract relating to the transfer of that property.
Erdenet’s public policy objection was also dismissed. It argued that enforcement of the award would condone criminality, relying on criminal proceedings in Mongolia involving individuals who had negotiated the relevant agreements. The Court noted that neither individual had been convicted. It also observed that the arbitral tribunal had considered those allegations when reaching its findings. There was no “palpable and indisputable illegality” on the face of the award that would justify refusing enforcement or setting it aside.
The decision is a useful reminder that the Singapore courts will carefully analyse questions of governing law, arbitrability and public policy in award enforcement proceedings. It also confirms that Singapore courts will, where possible, uphold arbitration agreements despite drafting defects or imperfect institutional references.
<span class="news-text_medium">Case:</span> <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Medipas LLC v Erdenet Mining Corp SOE [2026] SGHC 97</span>, 7 May 2026, Wong Ki Kok, Alex J.
