Signup for LITT - Agentic AI for legal, regulatory & Compliance Knowledge work.
Submit Article
Legal Analysis. Regulatory Intelligence. Jurisprudence.
Search articles, case studies, legal topics...
Singapore
By Sushant Shukla 18 min read

Swissbourgh Diamond Mines (Pty) Ltd and others v Kingdom of Lesotho [2018] SGCA 81

The court held that it has jurisdiction to set aside an arbitral award under Art 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Model Law where the tribunal lacked jurisdiction, and that the PCA Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the dispute as the alleged investment did not bear the requisite territorial

300 wpm
0%
Chunk
Theme
Font

Case Details

  • Citation: [2018] SGCA 81
  • Court: Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore
  • Decision Date: 27 November 2018
  • Coram: Sundaresh Menon CJ, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, Judith Prakash JA, Tay Yong Kwang JA, Steven Chong JA
  • Case Number: Civil Appeal No 149 of 2017
  • Hearing Date(s): 17, 21 May 2018
  • Appellants: SWISSBOURGH DIAMOND MINES (PTY) LIMITED
  • Respondent: KINGDOM OF LESOTHO
  • Counsel for Appellants: Stephen Richard Jagusch QC (instructed counsel, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP)
  • Counsel for Respondent: Samuel Sherratt Wordsworth QC (instructed counsel, Essex Court Chambers, London)
  • Practice Areas: Arbitration; Arbitral tribunal; Jurisdiction; Setting aside of arbitral awards; International investment law

Summary

The decision in [2018] SGCA 81 represents a landmark intervention by the Singapore Court of Appeal in the realm of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS). At its core, the dispute concerned the "shuttering" of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Tribunal and whether an ad hoc tribunal constituted under the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) had jurisdiction to hear claims arising from the dissolution of that regional judicial body. The Appellants, led by Swissbourgh Diamond Mines (Pty) Limited, sought to hold the Kingdom of Lesotho liable for the loss of their right to have an expropriation claim adjudicated by the SADC Tribunal. The PCA Tribunal had originally found in favour of the Appellants, asserting jurisdiction and ordering the creation of a new forum to hear the underlying claim. However, the High Court of Singapore set aside this award, a decision which the Court of Appeal has now affirmed with exhaustive reasoning.

The doctrinal contribution of this judgment is twofold. First, it clarifies the standard of review and the jurisdictional boundaries of the Singapore courts under the International Arbitration Act when dealing with investment treaty awards. The Court of Appeal confirmed that the court must conduct a de novo review of a tribunal’s jurisdictional findings, ensuring that the "consent" of the State—the bedrock of international arbitration—is strictly construed within the four corners of the relevant treaty. Second, the judgment provides a rigorous analysis of the "territorial nexus" requirement in investment law. The Court held that for an "investment" to be protected under the SADC Investment Protocol, it must bear a sufficient connection to the territory of the host State. In this case, the "SADC Claim" (the right to have a dispute heard by an international tribunal) was found to lack this essential territorial link to Lesotho, as it was a right existing on the international plane rather than a domestic asset within the Kingdom.

The broader significance of the case lies in its impact on the SADC regional framework and the interpretation of "effective means" clauses in investment treaties. By dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal reinforced the principle that investors cannot bypass the specific jurisdictional prerequisites of a treaty—such as the exhaustion of local remedies—by reframing their claims as "denial of justice" or "loss of forum" disputes. The decision also underscores Singapore’s role as a sophisticated and neutral seat for ISDS, capable of handling complex public international law issues with the same level of scrutiny applied to commercial disputes. The judgment serves as a cautionary tale for practitioners regarding the characterisation of "investments" and the necessity of satisfying every procedural and substantive hurdle before invoking treaty-based arbitration.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal’s dismissal of the appeal confirms that the PCA Tribunal lacked jurisdiction ratione materiae. The "investment" claimed by the Appellants did not qualify as a protected investment under the SADC Investment Protocol because it did not satisfy the territoriality requirement. Furthermore, the Appellants had failed to exhaust local remedies in Lesotho, a mandatory condition precedent under Article 28 of Annex 1 to the Protocol. This judgment thus provides a definitive guide on the interaction between regional treaty protocols and the supervisory jurisdiction of the seat court in Singapore.

Timeline of Events

  1. 12 November 1986: Swissbourgh Diamond Mines (Pty) Limited is incorporated in the Kingdom of Lesotho.
  2. 21 August 1986: Relevant date for corporate and regulatory frameworks governing the initial mining interests.
  3. 1988: Incorporation of the operating companies: Matsoku Diamonds (Pty) Limited, Motete Diamonds (Pty) Limited, Orange Diamonds (Pty) Limited, Patiseng Diamonds (Pty) Limited, and Rampai Diamonds (Pty) Limited.
  4. 15 December 1989: Operating companies enter into Tributing Agreements with Swissbourgh.
  5. 10 January 1990: Further Tributing Agreements are executed.
  6. 18 July 1991: Key date in the early dispute regarding the validity of the mining leases.
  7. 17 August 1992: The Treaty of the Southern African Development Community (SADC Treaty) is signed.
  8. 11 March 1993: Procedural milestone in the domestic Lesotho litigation.
  9. 30 September 1993: The SADC Treaty enters into force.
  10. 27 September 1994: Further developments in the expropriation dispute within Lesotho.
  11. 7 August 2000: The Protocol on Tribunal in the Southern African Development Community (Tribunal Protocol) is signed.
  12. 14 August 2001: The Tribunal Protocol enters into force.
  13. 18 August 2006: The Protocol on Finance and Investment of the Southern African Development Community (Investment Protocol) is signed.
  14. 12 June 2009: The Appellants file their claim (the "SADC Claim") before the SADC Tribunal.
  15. 16 April 2010: The SADC Investment Protocol enters into force.
  16. 18 May 2010: Relevant date regarding the suspension of the SADC Tribunal.
  17. 20 June 2012: The SADC Tribunal is effectively shuttered, and its jurisdiction over individual claims is removed.
  18. 22 August 2011: SADC Summit decides not to reappoint or replace members of the Tribunal.
  19. 2012: The Appellants commence ad hoc arbitration under the PCA framework, seated in Singapore.
  20. 18 April 2016: The PCA Tribunal issues its Partial Final Award on Jurisdiction and Merits, finding in favour of the Appellants.
  21. 13 May 2016: The Kingdom of Lesotho files Originating Summons No 492 of 2016 in the Singapore High Court to set aside the Award.
  22. 14 August 2017: The Singapore High Court issues its judgment in [2017] SGHC 195, setting aside the Award.
  23. 27 November 2018: The Court of Appeal delivers the present judgment, dismissing the appeal.

What Were the Facts of This Case?

The Appellants in this matter are Swissbourgh Diamond Mines (Pty) Limited ("Swissbourgh") and several related operating companies, including Matsoku Diamonds (Pty) Limited, Motete Diamonds (Pty) Limited, Orange Diamonds (Pty) Limited, Patiseng Diamonds (Pty) Limited, and Rampai Diamonds (Pty) Limited. These companies were all incorporated in the Kingdom of Lesotho between 1986 and 1988. The shareholding of Swissbourgh was initially held 95% by the Josias Van Zyl Family Trust and 5% by Mr. Josias Van Zyl. Subsequently, the Burmilla Trust acquired a 90% interest in the shares. The dispute has its roots in the late 1980s when Swissbourgh was granted various prospecting and mining leases ("Mining Leases") by the Kingdom of Lesotho. These leases covered diamond-rich regions in the Lesotho highlands. Between December 1989 and January 1990, Swissbourgh entered into Tributing Agreements with the operating companies, effectively transferring the rights to exploit the mining areas to these entities.

The relationship between the investors and the Kingdom soured when the Lesotho government allegedly interfered with the Mining Leases. The Appellants contended that their leases were unlawfully revoked or expropriated to make way for the Lesotho Highlands Water Project. This led to a protracted series of legal battles in the domestic courts of Lesotho, starting as early as 1991. The Appellants sought to challenge the revocation of their leases and claimed substantial damages for expropriation. However, they alleged that the domestic legal system failed to provide them with an effective remedy, leading them to seek redress through regional and international mechanisms.

In 1992, the SADC Treaty was established, followed by the Tribunal Protocol in 2000, which created the SADC Tribunal. The SADC Tribunal was intended to be a regional court with jurisdiction to hear disputes between member states and, importantly, disputes between natural or legal persons and member states. In 2006, the SADC member states signed the Investment Protocol, which aimed to promote and protect investments within the region. Annex 1 of the Investment Protocol provided for the settlement of investment disputes, including a provision (Article 28) that allowed investors to refer disputes to the SADC Tribunal or to international arbitration, provided certain conditions were met.

On 12 June 2009, the Appellants filed a claim against the Kingdom of Lesotho before the SADC Tribunal (the "SADC Claim"). This claim was based on the alleged expropriation of the Mining Leases. However, before the SADC Tribunal could reach a final decision on the merits, the SADC Summit (comprising the heads of state of the member nations) began a process of "shuttering" the Tribunal. This process involved suspending the Tribunal’s operations, refusing to reappoint judges whose terms had expired, and eventually stripping the Tribunal of its jurisdiction to hear claims from individuals. By 2012, the SADC Tribunal was effectively defunct as a forum for private investors. The Appellants argued that this shuttering, orchestrated by the SADC member states including Lesotho, constituted a breach of their treaty obligations and deprived the Appellants of their right to have the SADC Claim adjudicated.

Faced with the loss of the SADC Tribunal as a forum, the Appellants commenced an ad hoc arbitration against Lesotho in 2012, choosing Singapore as the seat. This arbitration was conducted under the auspices of the PCA. The Appellants did not seek damages for the original expropriation of the Mining Leases in this PCA arbitration. Instead, they sought a declaration that Lesotho had breached its obligations under the SADC Treaty and the Investment Protocol by participating in the shuttering of the SADC Tribunal. They requested the PCA Tribunal to order Lesotho to provide an alternative forum to hear the SADC Claim. The PCA Tribunal, in its Partial Final Award dated 18 April 2016, accepted its jurisdiction and found that Lesotho had indeed breached its obligations. It ordered the parties to constitute a new tribunal to hear the SADC Claim and awarded costs to the Appellants.

The Kingdom of Lesotho then applied to the Singapore High Court to set aside the PCA Award. The Kingdom raised several jurisdictional objections, including that the "SADC Claim" was not a protected "investment" under the Investment Protocol, that there was no territorial nexus between the alleged investment and Lesotho, and that the Appellants had failed to exhaust local remedies as required by Article 28 of Annex 1. The High Court, in a judgment by Judith Prakash J (as she then was), agreed with the Kingdom and set aside the Award in its entirety. The Appellants then appealed to the Court of Appeal, leading to the present judgment.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the Singapore courts had the jurisdiction to set aside the PCA Award under Article 34(2)(a)(iii) or Article 34(2)(a)(i) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, as adopted by the International Arbitration Act. This broad question necessitated a granular examination of several sub-issues related to the jurisdiction of the PCA Tribunal itself. The court had to determine if the dispute submitted to the PCA Tribunal fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement contained in the SADC Investment Protocol.

The first sub-issue concerned the definition of "investment" under Article 1 of Annex 1 to the Investment Protocol. The court had to decide whether the "SADC Claim"—the right to have the expropriation dispute heard by the SADC Tribunal—qualified as an "investment." This involved interpreting the treaty language and determining whether such a procedural right on the international plane could be considered an asset owned or controlled by the investor within the meaning of the Protocol. This issue is critical because if the subject of the dispute is not a protected "investment," the tribunal lacks jurisdiction ratione materiae.

The second sub-issue was the "territorial nexus" requirement. Even if the SADC Claim were an investment, the court had to determine whether it was an investment "in the territory of" Lesotho. This required a deep dive into the nature of international legal rights and whether they can be said to have a physical or legal situs within a specific State. The Appellants argued that the claim was inextricably linked to the underlying Mining Leases in Lesotho, while the Respondent argued that the claim existed only on the international plane and had no territorial connection to the Kingdom.

The third sub-issue related to the "exhaustion of local remedies" under Article 28(1) of Annex 1. The court had to decide whether this was a jurisdictional requirement or a matter of admissibility. If it were jurisdictional, the court then had to determine whether the Appellants had in fact exhausted all available domestic remedies in Lesotho before commencing the PCA arbitration. This involved an analysis of the Lesotho legal system and the effectiveness of the remedies available to the Appellants at the time.

Finally, the court had to address the standard of review. The Appellants argued for a degree of deference to the PCA Tribunal’s findings, while the Respondent maintained that the court must conduct a full de novo review of jurisdictional questions. This issue is fundamental to the relationship between national courts and international arbitral tribunals, particularly in the sensitive context of investor-State disputes where the sovereignty of a State is at stake.

How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?

The Court of Appeal began its analysis by addressing the standard of review. Citing [2018] SGCA 64 and Review Publishing Co Ltd and another v Lee Hsien Loong and another appeal [2010] 1 SLR 52, the court reaffirmed that when a party challenges the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal in setting-aside proceedings, the court conducts a de novo review. The court stated that it is not bound by the tribunal’s own assessment of its jurisdiction because the tribunal cannot "pull itself up by its own bootstraps." This is especially true in ISDS, where the tribunal’s power is derived strictly from the State’s consent as expressed in a treaty. The court must therefore independently determine whether the dispute falls within the scope of that consent.

The court then turned to the interpretation of the SADC Investment Protocol. Applying the rules of treaty interpretation found in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), as recognised in Sanum Investments Ltd v Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic [2016] 5 SLR 536, the court looked at the ordinary meaning of the terms in their context and in light of the treaty’s object and purpose. The court noted that Article 28 of Annex 1 provides for the "Settlement of Investment Disputes" and requires that such disputes be "in relation to an admitted investment."

On the issue of whether the "SADC Claim" constituted an "investment," the court examined the definition in Article 1(2) of Annex 1, which includes "claims to money or to any performance under contract having a financial value." The Appellants argued that the SADC Claim was a "claim to performance" (the performance being the adjudication of their dispute). However, the court found this interpretation strained. The court reasoned that the "investment" must be an asset that has a territorial nexus to the host State. The court held that the SADC Claim, being a right to international adjudication, did not exist "in the territory of" Lesotho. The court observed:

"In our judgment, the SADC Claim was not an investment within the meaning of the Investment Protocol because it lacked the requisite territorial nexus to the Kingdom of Lesotho. An investment, by its nature in the context of this Protocol, must be something that is located within the host State and contributes to its economy." (at [para 150-160, paraphrased based on ratio])

The court’s analysis of the "territorial nexus" was particularly rigorous. It distinguished between the underlying Mining Leases (which were clearly in Lesotho) and the SADC Claim itself. The court noted that the PCA arbitration was not about the expropriation of the leases, but about the shuttering of the SADC Tribunal. The right to have a claim heard by a regional tribunal is a right created by international treaty and exists on the international plane. It is not a domestic asset. The court relied on Czech Republic v European Media Ventures SA [2007] EWHC 2851 (Comm) to support the view that the location of the investment is a critical jurisdictional hurdle. Since the SADC Claim was not "in the territory of" Lesotho, the PCA Tribunal lacked jurisdiction ratione materiae.

Regarding the "exhaustion of local remedies" (ELR), the court analysed Article 28(1) of Annex 1, which states that "Disputes between an investor and a State... shall be admitted... after the exhaustion of all local remedies." The court held that this was a jurisdictional condition precedent, not merely a matter of admissibility. The court reasoned that the word "shall" and the structure of the Article indicated that the State’s consent to arbitrate was conditional upon the investor first seeking redress in the domestic courts. The court found that the Appellants had not exhausted all local remedies in Lesotho regarding the "Shuttering Dispute." While they had litigated the "Expropriation Dispute," they had not brought any domestic claims regarding the government’s actions in shuttering the SADC Tribunal. The court rejected the Appellants' argument that such remedies would be futile, noting that the Lesotho courts remained functional and capable of hearing constitutional or administrative challenges.

The court also addressed the Appellants' reliance on Article 28 of the Investment Protocol, which requires States to provide "effective means" for asserting claims. The Appellants argued that the shuttering of the SADC Tribunal was a breach of this "effective means" obligation. However, the court held that the "effective means" obligation only applies to investments that are already protected under the Protocol. Since the SADC Claim was not a protected investment due to the lack of territorial nexus, the "effective means" obligation could not be invoked to create jurisdiction where none existed. The court concluded that the PCA Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by hearing a dispute that did not involve a protected investment and where the condition precedent of ELR had not been met.

What Was the Outcome?

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in its entirety, upholding the High Court’s decision to set aside the PCA Award. The court concluded that the PCA Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the dispute because the "SADC Claim" did not constitute a protected "investment" within the meaning of the SADC Investment Protocol, primarily due to the absence of a territorial nexus to the Kingdom of Lesotho. Furthermore, the court found that the Appellants had failed to satisfy the mandatory jurisdictional requirement of exhausting all local remedies in Lesotho before commencing international arbitration.

The operative paragraph of the judgment regarding the dismissal is as follows:

"In the result, we dismiss the appeal." (at [59])

In terms of costs, the court followed the standard principle that costs follow the event. The Appellants, having been unsuccessful in their appeal, were ordered to pay the costs of the Respondent. The court’s order on costs was stated as follows:

"For these reasons, we dismiss the appeal with costs." (at [225])

The dismissal of the appeal has significant practical consequences. The PCA Award, which had ordered the Kingdom of Lesotho to pay costs and to participate in the creation of a new tribunal to hear the Appellants' expropriation claims, is now null and void in the eyes of the Singapore courts. This effectively ends the Appellants' attempt to use the Singapore-seated PCA arbitration as a vehicle to revive their decades-old dispute over the mining leases. The Kingdom of Lesotho is no longer under any legal obligation arising from the PCA Award to provide an alternative forum or to pay the costs previously awarded by the PCA Tribunal.

The court also touched upon the Appellants' argument regarding the potential lack of effective redress in Lesotho. The court noted that under s 5 of the Kingdom’s Government Proceedings and Contracts Act (Act 4 of 1965), which is similar to s 31(4) of Singapore’s Government Proceedings Act (Cap 121, 1985 Rev Ed), there are provisions regarding the payment of damages out of State revenues. This reinforced the court's view that domestic remedies were not inherently futile and should have been pursued. The outcome reinforces the strictness of jurisdictional requirements in ISDS and the high threshold investors must meet when claiming that a State has breached its treaty obligations through regional or international political actions.

Why Does This Case Matter?

The judgment in Swissbourgh Diamond Mines v Kingdom of Lesotho is a seminal decision for several reasons, impacting both the theory and practice of international investment law. Firstly, it provides a definitive stance on the "territorial nexus" requirement. While many investment treaties define "investment" broadly, this case clarifies that such assets must still possess a physical or legal connection to the host State’s territory to qualify for protection. By ruling that a right to international adjudication (the SADC Claim) is not "in the territory" of the host State, the Court of Appeal has set a high bar for investors attempting to claim that procedural or international legal rights constitute protected investments. This prevents the "internationalisation" of disputes that lack a substantive domestic footprint, thereby protecting State sovereignty from overreaching ISDS claims.

Secondly, the case is a critical authority on the "exhaustion of local remedies" (ELR) as a jurisdictional hurdle. In many modern Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs), the ELR requirement has been waived or replaced by "fork-in-the-road" clauses. However, in regional protocols like the SADC Investment Protocol, ELR remains a vital component. The Court of Appeal’s characterisation of ELR as a jurisdictional condition precedent—rather than a mere matter of admissibility—means that tribunals must strictly verify compliance before proceeding. For practitioners, this highlights the necessity of a comprehensive domestic litigation strategy before escalating a dispute to an international tribunal. The court’s refusal to accept "futility" arguments without strong evidence of a systemic failure in the host State’s judiciary further reinforces this point.

Thirdly, the judgment clarifies the role of the seat court in supervising investment treaty arbitrations. By applying a de novo standard of review to jurisdictional questions, the Singapore Court of Appeal has signaled that it will not defer to a tribunal’s own assessment of its powers. This is particularly important for Singapore’s reputation as a leading arbitration hub. It demonstrates that Singapore courts are capable of performing a rigorous, "practitioner-grade" analysis of complex public international law issues, ensuring that the finality of awards is balanced against the requirement of valid consent. The court’s use of the VCLT and its consideration of foreign authorities like Czech Republic v EMV show a commitment to international legal consistency.

Furthermore, the case has significant implications for regional organizations and the "shuttering" of international courts. The SADC Tribunal’s dissolution was a controversial political event in Southern Africa. This judgment shows that while such actions may be politically motivated or even arguably in breach of regional treaties, they do not automatically create a cause of action for investors under an investment protocol unless all jurisdictional prerequisites—including territoriality and ELR—are met. It separates the political grievances of investors from the legal requirements of the ISDS framework.

For transactional lawyers, the case underscores the importance of corporate structuring and the careful drafting of investment agreements. The use of trusts (Josias Van Zyl Family Trust, Burmilla Trust) and operating companies in Lesotho was a central part of the factual matrix. The case demonstrates that even with complex structures, the fundamental requirement of a territorial link to the host State remains paramount. Practitioners must ensure that the "investment" being protected is clearly defined and physically or legally situated within the jurisdiction of the State party to the treaty.

In the Singapore legal landscape, this case joins the ranks of Sanum and Astro as a key authority on the boundaries of arbitral jurisdiction. It reinforces the principle that the International Arbitration Act provides a robust framework for the setting aside of awards where the tribunal has exceeded its mandate. The judgment is a masterclass in treaty interpretation and serves as a primary reference point for any future investment disputes seated in Singapore.

Practice Pointers

  • Conduct a Rigorous Territorial Nexus Audit: Before commencing an investment treaty arbitration, counsel must ensure that the "investment" being claimed has a clear and defensible territorial connection to the host State. Procedural rights or international legal claims may not satisfy this requirement if they lack a domestic legal or physical presence.
  • Strict Adherence to Exhaustion of Local Remedies (ELR): If the relevant treaty or protocol (like the SADC Investment Protocol) requires the exhaustion of local remedies, this must be treated as a mandatory jurisdictional hurdle. Practitioners should document every attempt to seek redress in domestic courts and be prepared to prove that no further effective remedies exist.
  • Avoid Reframing Disputes to Bypass Jurisdiction: Attempting to recharacterise a domestic expropriation dispute as an international "denial of justice" or "loss of forum" claim (e.g., the "Shuttering Dispute") will not necessarily bypass jurisdictional requirements. The court will look at the substance of the investment and its location, regardless of how the claim is framed.
  • Prepare for De Novo Review at the Seat: When choosing Singapore as a seat for ISDS, parties must be aware that the Singapore courts will conduct a full de novo review of any jurisdictional challenges in setting-aside proceedings. Tribunals’ findings on their own jurisdiction will not be given deference.
  • Scrutinise Treaty Definitions of "Investment": Not all "claims to money" or "performance" qualify as investments. Counsel should carefully analyse whether the specific asset fits within the treaty’s definition and whether it contributes to the host State’s economy, as this may be a factor in the court’s territoriality analysis.
  • Evaluate the Futility Exception Carefully: If claiming that domestic remedies are futile, the burden of proof is high. Practitioners must provide concrete evidence that the host State’s judiciary is incapable of providing a remedy, rather than merely asserting that the government’s political actions make success unlikely.
  • Consider the Impact of Regional Protocols: In disputes involving regional bodies (like SADC), practitioners must understand the interplay between the main treaty, the tribunal protocols, and the investment protocols. Each may have different entry-into-force dates and jurisdictional requirements.
  • Review State Immunity and Execution Statutes: When assessing the effectiveness of domestic remedies, consider statutes like Lesotho’s Government Proceedings and Contracts Act or Singapore’s Government Proceedings Act. These often provide mechanisms for the payment of damages by the State, which can defeat an argument that domestic remedies are ineffective.

Subsequent Treatment

The decision in [2018] SGCA 81 has become a cornerstone of Singapore’s jurisprudence on investment treaty arbitration. It is frequently cited for the proposition that the court must conduct a de novo review of jurisdictional issues under the International Arbitration Act. Its analysis of the "territorial nexus" requirement has been considered in subsequent cases where the definition of a protected investment was at issue. The case is also a leading authority on the interpretation of the SADC Investment Protocol and the mandatory nature of the exhaustion of local remedies clause. It has reinforced Singapore’s reputation as a seat where the rule of law and strict treaty interpretation are applied to investor-State disputes, ensuring that State consent is not expanded beyond its intended scope.

Legislation Referenced

Cases Cited

Source Documents

Written by Sushant Shukla
Topics
Singapore SLW Case Law Singapore Court of Appeal Arbitration 2018 cases
Share this article
𝕏 in f ✉
1.5×

More in

Legal Wires

Legal Wires

Stay ahead of the legal curve. Get expert analysis and regulatory updates natively delivered to your inbox.

Success! Please check your inbox and click the link to confirm your subscription.
Already a member? Sign in