NO TWO BITES AT THE CHERRY: SINGAPORE COURT REFUSES RE-LITIGATING JURISDICTION ISSUES UPON ENFORCEMENT APPLYING DOCTRINE OF TRANSNATIONAL ISSUE ESTOPPEL

A rare five-judge bench of the Court of Appeal in The Republic of India v Deutsche Telekom AG [2023] SGCA(I) 10 has confirmed that transnational issue estoppel applies in international commercial arbitration, preventing the parties to a prior decision of the seat court on jurisdiction from re-litigating points previously raised and determined.

The Republic of India sought to resist enforcement of a foreign award obtained by Deutsche Telekom in Singapore primarily on the ground that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction. The arbitration had been seated in Geneva, Switzerland, and the Singapore court heard the matter in its capacity as an enforcement court. The seat court had already dismissed India's application to set aside the award, upholding the tribunal's jurisdiction and the validity of the award. The Singapore courts had to determine whether India was precluded from re-litigating those points that were determined by the seat court.

Transnational Issue Estoppel

The Singapore court found, as a threshold matter, that the doctrine of transnational issue estoppel applies in the context of international commercial arbitration. A Singapore enforcing court should accord a preclusive effect to a seat court's decision as to the validity of an arbitral award. This was sufficient to, and did, dispose of the appeal as India was precluded from relying on those same grounds to resist enforcement in Singapore.

In coming to this view, the court noted that the New York Convention does not operate in isolation – domestic law of the enforcement court is also relevant. In this case, Singapore law already recognises the principles of transnational issue estoppel:

(a) the foreign judgment must be capable of being recognised in this jurisdiction, where issue estoppel is being invoked. Under the common law, this means that the foreign judgment must:

1. be a final and conclusive decision on the merits;
2. originate from a court of competent jurisdiction that has transnational jurisdiction over the party sought to be bound; and
3. not be subject to any defences to recognition;

(b) there must be commonality of the parties to the prior proceedings and to the proceedings in which the estoppel is raised; and

(c) the subject matter of the estoppel must be the same as what has been decided in the prior judgment.

Applying this as part of the residual domestic law applicable in enforcement proceedings respects the parties' choice of seat and is consistent with the notion that courts should respect each other's decisions to avoid duplication, repetition, and inconsistency as far as possible.

The doctrine of transnational issue estoppel can also be applied in a manner that safeguards the enforcing court's domestic concerns. In this regard, no question of issue estoppel arises where the public policy of the enforcement court's jurisdiction or arbitrability of a dispute is in issue. Such issues would not have been previously considered by the seat court as domestic public policy is unique to each state. There would therefore be no identity of subject matter.

The court also considered whether the decision of a seat court enjoys a special status within the framework for the judicial supervision and support of international arbitration. The court (save for Lord Mance IJ) opined that it may be appropriate to give primacy to the seat court's decision, but ultimately left the question open.

Comment

The Singapore court's decision promotes certainty, consistency, and finality. It ensures that parties cannot re-litigate points that have already been dismissed by the seat court to delay the enforcement of an award in Singapore.

The decision also suggests that a party will face an uphill struggle to argue at the enforcement stage that a Tribunal lacked jurisdiction where jurisdiction has already been addressed by the seat court, unless some other defence to recognition applies (e.g. public policy).

From a practical perspective, parties should take extra care when negotiating the seat of arbitration to ensure that they have confidence in the seat courts that would ultimately be responsible for ruling on issues of jurisdiction and the validity of an award – especially where the decisions of the seat court on such issues cannot be appealed.

For more information, please contact Daniel Waldek, Partner, Claudia Chan, Associate, or your usual Herbert Smith Freehills contact.