Case Details
- Citation: [2025] SGHC(I) 16
- Court: Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC)
- Originating Application: Originating Application No 18 of 2024 (Summons No 65 of 2024)
- Date of decision (grounds of decision): 25 June 2025
- Hearing dates: 23 December 2024; 16 January 2025; 15 May 2025
- Judges: Hri Kumar Nair J, Dominique Hascher IJ and Simon Thorley IJ
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Cooperativa Muratori and Cementisti – CMC di Ravenna, Italy (“CMC”)
- Defendants/Respondents: (1) Department of Water Supply & Sewerage Management, Kathmandu (“DOW”); (2) Melamchi Water Supply Development Board (“MB”)
- Legal area(s): Arbitration; Conflict of laws; Anti-suit injunctions; Sovereign immunity
- Statutes referenced: State Immunity Act 1979 (2020 Rev Ed) (in particular ss 3, 11, 15 and 16)
- Key procedural posture: Interim anti-suit injunction sought to restrain foreign proceedings challenging arbitral decisions
- Arbitral framework: SIAC arbitration; seat/“place of arbitration” determined by the Tribunal as Singapore
- Judgment length: 32 pages; 9,361 words
- Core themes: Party autonomy; enforcement of arbitration agreements; restraint of foreign judicial proceedings; comity; sovereign immunity as a potential bar to jurisdiction
Summary
This decision of the Singapore International Commercial Court (“SICC”) concerns the enforcement of party autonomy in an international arbitration by means of an interim anti-suit injunction. The claimant, Cooperativa Muratori and Cementisti – CMC di Ravenna, Italy (“CMC”), sought to restrain the second defendant, the Melamchi Water Supply Development Board (“MB”), from pursuing foreign proceedings in Nepal that challenged an arbitral tribunal’s decision on the seat of the arbitration. The SICC’s central premise was that where parties have agreed to arbitrate in a particular forum, the court should generally hold them to their bargain, including by preventing collateral attacks abroad.
The dispute arose from a construction contract for a water supply project in Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. The contract provided for SIAC arbitration with Singapore designated as the “place of arbitration”. After the tribunal issued a “Seat Decision” holding that the seat was Singapore, MB commenced a “Second Annulment Application” in the High Court Patan (Nepal) seeking to set aside that decision. CMC applied to the SICC for an interim anti-suit injunction to restrain MB from continuing those foreign proceedings pending the final determination of CMC’s earlier application in Singapore (OA 18) relating to the tribunal’s jurisdictional determinations.
The SICC granted the interim anti-suit injunction. In doing so, it reaffirmed the established approach that anti-suit relief is appropriate where the defendant is amenable to the Singapore court’s jurisdiction and the foreign proceedings are a breach of the arbitration agreement or of the legal/equitable right not to be sued in that forum. The court also addressed, in a postscript, whether MB enjoyed sovereign immunity from the Singapore courts, ultimately treating sovereign immunity as not preventing the grant of the relief sought on the facts.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
CMC is an Italian company engaged in infrastructure construction projects internationally. The first defendant, the Department of Water Supply & Sewerage Management, Kathmandu (“DOW”), is a department within Nepal’s Ministry of Water Supply and acts as a lead agency for water supply, sanitation and hygiene projects in Nepal. The second defendant, the Melamchi Water Supply Development Board (“MB”), was created by the Government of Nepal as the implementing agency for the Melamchi water supply project intended to alleviate chronic water shortages in the Kathmandu Valley (the “Project”).
In or around July 2013, CMC and MB entered into a contract for construction services relating to the Project (the “Contract”). The Contract’s dispute resolution mechanism was contained in the General Conditions of the Contract (“GCC”) and the Particular Conditions of Contract (“PCC”). Clause 20.6(a) of the GCC provided that disputes would be settled by arbitration. The PCC specified that the arbitration would be administered by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”), conducted under SIAC rules, and—critically—Singapore was designated as the “place of arbitration”.
Various disputes arose between CMC and MB. CMC terminated the Contract in November 2018. On 30 December 2022, CMC commenced arbitration with SIAC. The named defendant in the Notice of Arbitration was “Department of Water Supply & Sewerage Management, Kathmandu which was formerly known as Melamchi Water Supply Development Board (MWSDB)”. CMC’s position was that, based on statements made by the Government of Nepal, DOW and MB, MB had been dissolved and succeeded by DOW. This framing became important because it fed directly into the tribunal’s jurisdictional analysis.
After a three-member tribunal was constituted on 30 May 2023, DOW challenged the tribunal’s jurisdiction and sought early dismissal on the basis that there was no arbitration agreement between CMC and DOW. In response, CMC applied for a declaration that MB was a party to the arbitration, and alternatively sought MB’s joinder. The tribunal issued a “Joint Decision” on 12 September 2023: it allowed DOW’s early dismissal application (dismissing CMC’s claims against DOW) and allowed the joinder application (finding MB was already a party and, in any event, joining MB to avoid doubt).
Following the Joint Decision, DOW applied in Nepal to set it aside (the “First Annulment Application”). In response, CMC applied to the SICC for an anti-suit injunction (SIC/OA 18/2024, “OA 18”) to restrain both DOW and MB from pursuing foreign proceedings challenging the Joint Decision. OA 18 remained pending because CMC was in the process of effecting service on DOW and MB.
In parallel, a further dispute emerged in 2024 regarding the seat of the arbitration. MB contended that the seat was Nepal, whereas CMC maintained it was Singapore. On 20 August 2024, the tribunal issued a “Seat Decision” holding that Singapore was the seat. MB then applied to the High Court Patan in Nepal to set aside the Seat Decision (the “Second Annulment Application”). CMC’s present application (SIC/SUM 65/2024, “SUM 65”) sought an interim anti-suit injunction restraining MB from pursuing the Second Annulment Application and other foreign proceedings challenging the Seat Decision pending the final determination of OA 18.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The SICC identified several interlocking legal questions. First, it had to determine whether an anti-suit injunction should be granted to CMC. This required the court to consider the applicable legal framework for anti-suit relief in Singapore and whether the threshold requirements were satisfied.
Second, the court had to consider whether MB was amenable to the jurisdiction of the Singapore courts. Amenability is a foundational requirement for anti-suit injunctions because the court’s coercive power operates only over parties subject to its jurisdiction.
Third, the court had to decide whether MB’s Second Annulment Application constituted a breach of the arbitration agreement. In anti-suit injunction cases, the breach analysis is often framed as whether the foreign proceedings are inconsistent with the parties’ agreement as to the arbitral seat and the supervisory jurisdiction of the courts at that seat.
Fourth, even if there was a breach, the court had to assess whether there were “strong reasons” not to grant the injunction. This reflects the comity-based caution that courts apply when restraining foreign proceedings, balanced against the need to enforce arbitration agreements.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court began by situating the case within the broader international arbitration principle of party autonomy. The SICC emphasised that parties are generally free to agree on how and where disputes are resolved, and that courts should enforce the consequences of that bargain. Anti-suit injunctions are described as a key “weapon” in the court’s armoury to compel a party amenable to Singapore’s jurisdiction to refrain from instituting or continuing proceedings abroad.
In addressing the legal framework, the SICC relied on established Singapore authority on anti-suit injunctions. It noted that while interference with a foreign court’s jurisdiction is a serious matter requiring caution as a matter of comity, the level of caution diminishes where the injunction is sought to enforce a jurisdiction or arbitration agreement. The court cited the principle that there is “no good reason for diffidence” where the defendant has promised not to bring proceedings abroad and the injunction is sought on that clear basis.
Applying this framework, the SICC considered whether MB was amenable to the Singapore courts. The judgment indicates that MB’s conduct during the proceedings was relevant to the court’s assessment of its position, including MB’s stance on service and jurisdiction. The court proceeded on an interim basis, granting relief effective until the inter partes hearing, and later continued to address the merits. The court’s approach reflects the practical reality that anti-suit relief often needs to be granted quickly to prevent irreparable procedural harm from foreign proceedings.
On the breach of arbitration agreement, the court focused on the seat of the arbitration. The tribunal had already decided that Singapore was the seat based on the contractual designation of Singapore as the “place of arbitration” read with the Contract Data. The SICC treated the seat designation as central to determining which courts had supervisory jurisdiction over arbitral decisions. MB’s attempt to set aside the Seat Decision in Nepal was therefore inconsistent with the agreed supervisory framework, and thus engaged the legal/equitable right not to be sued in that forum.
The court also addressed whether there were strong reasons not to grant an anti-suit injunction. The “strong reasons” requirement functions as a safeguard against overreach. In this case, the court’s reasoning suggests that the arbitration agreement and the tribunal’s seat determination provided a clear basis for enforcement. The court did not treat comity as an overriding obstacle because the injunction was directed at enforcing the arbitration agreement rather than undermining foreign adjudication for unrelated reasons.
Importantly, the SICC’s analysis was not limited to the immediate foreign proceedings. It was also linked to the pending Singapore proceedings in OA 18, which concerned challenges to the tribunal’s Joint Decision. The interim injunction in SUM 65 was designed to preserve the effectiveness of the Singapore supervisory process and prevent MB from obtaining foreign outcomes that could complicate or frustrate the resolution of the arbitration-related issues in Singapore.
Finally, the judgment contains a postscript addressing sovereign immunity. The court considered whether MB enjoyed sovereign immunity from the jurisdiction of the Singapore courts under the State Immunity Act 1979 (2020 Rev Ed), referencing ss 3, 11, 15 and 16. While the extracted text does not reproduce the full sovereign immunity analysis, the inclusion of the postscript indicates that the court treated sovereign immunity as a potentially relevant jurisdictional objection. The court’s ultimate approach, as reflected in the structure of the decision, was that sovereign immunity did not prevent the grant of the anti-suit relief on the facts.
What Was the Outcome?
The SICC granted CMC an interim anti-suit injunction restraining MB from pursuing the Second Annulment Application in Nepal and other foreign proceedings challenging the Seat Decision, pending the final determination of OA 18. The practical effect is that MB was required to pause its foreign challenge strategy and instead allow the Singapore process to run its course.
The decision also clarifies that, where the arbitration agreement and the tribunal’s seat determination point to Singapore as the seat, foreign proceedings that seek to undermine that framework may be restrained. The court’s orders therefore reinforce the enforceability of arbitration agreements and the supervisory role of the courts at the seat.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case is significant for practitioners because it illustrates how Singapore courts—particularly the SICC—will use anti-suit injunctions to protect the integrity of arbitration agreements and the seat-based supervisory architecture. The decision reiterates that party autonomy is not merely aspirational; it is enforceable through coercive court orders, especially where foreign proceedings threaten to create procedural fragmentation or undermine the agreed dispute resolution mechanism.
From a conflict-of-laws perspective, the case is also a useful reference point on how courts treat the seat of arbitration as a jurisdictional anchor. When a tribunal determines the seat, and the contract supports that determination, attempts to challenge arbitral decisions in courts outside the seat may be characterised as breaches of the arbitration agreement and as infringements of the right not to be sued in the wrong forum.
For counsel representing state-linked entities or government agencies, the postscript on sovereign immunity is particularly relevant. Even where a respondent may argue sovereign immunity, the court will examine the statutory framework and the circumstances in which immunity is invoked. The case therefore provides guidance on how sovereign immunity arguments may be approached in the context of arbitration enforcement and anti-suit relief.
Legislation Referenced
- State Immunity Act 1979 (2020 Rev Ed), in particular ss 3, 11, 15 and 16
Cases Cited
- BCS Cooperativa Muratori and Cementisti – CMC di Ravenna, Italy v Department of Water Supply & Sewerage Management, Kathmandu Business Consulting Services Pte Ltd and others v Baker, Michael A (executor of the estate of Chantal Burnison, deceased) [2023] 1 SLR 1 (“BCS”) (cited at [1])
- Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar v Jhaveri Darsan Jitendra [2019] 2 SLR 372 (cited at [108])
- Aggeliki Charis Compania Maritima SA v Pagnan SpA (The “Angelic Grace”) [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 87 (cited at 96)
Source Documents
This article analyses [2025] SGHCI 16 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.