Winning Arbitration Means Getting Paid? This Singapore Case Tells You: Timing of Rehashing Old Issues Matters More Than Reasons

仲裁赢了就能拿到钱？新加坡这起案子告诉你：翻旧账的时机比理由更重要

ຊະນະການອະນຸຍາໂຕຕຸລາການແລ້ວຈະໄດ້ເງິນບໍ? ຄະດີຢູ່ສິງຄະໂປນີ້ບອກທ່ານວ່າ: ເວລາທີ່ຈະຂຸດເລື່ອງເກົ່າຂຶ້ນມາສຳຄັນກວ່າເຫດຜົນ

Published: 2026-09-21 · LaoPaniti legal guides

A Scenario That Baffles Many

A Company took an international investment arbitration award to the Singapore Court to apply for enforcement, and the Court granted approval. The opposing party was the Lao government. The Company was not satisfied and then applied to set aside this approval order, on the grounds that the Lao government had signed a fee cap agreement when hiring a Lawyer but did not disclose it, which constituted fraud.

Sounds somewhat reasonable? The answer given by the Singapore International Commercial Court in 2024 was: dismissed. Moreover, the Court also found that the Company's move constituted an abuse of process.

This case (Lao government v. Lao Holdings NV) is worth a careful review by anyone doing Investment or Arbitration in Laos—it is not about who is right or wrong, but about when to raise it, which is more critical than what to raise.

Focus One: Old Issues Not Calculated in the Previous Round Cannot Be Calculated in This Round

The Company actually had the opportunity to raise the fee agreement issue earlier. In the previous setting aside an arbitral award proceedings, it did not raise it. Only at the enforcement stage did it bring up this issue.

The Court's position is clear: if you do not raise it when you should, and now raise it in a different procedure, it is not allowed procedurally. This is the Henderson v Henderson principle commonly mentioned in common law—a Dispute should be resolved once and for all at the appropriate stage, and cannot be split into multiple rounds, repeatedly consuming the other party and the Court.

For those doing business in Laos, this lesson is very practical: Arbitration is not a card game that can be reopened indefinitely. What should be claimed must be claimed in the first round.

Focus Two: The Fee Cap Agreement Itself Does Not Constitute Fraud

The Company's second reason was: the Lao government did not disclose the fee cap agreement with its Lawyer, which equals fraud, and therefore the award should not be enforced.

The Court did not support this claim. Whether the fee agreement needs to be disclosed does not, in this case, constitute a reason to refuse enforcement of the ICSID Arbitral Award. In other words, the Company tried to use this point to leverage the enforcement procedure, but it could not.

The legal framework involved here includes Article 34(3) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, the Singapore International Arbitration Act (2020 Revised Edition), and the aforementioned Henderson v Henderson principle. Note that these are contents at the level of Singapore Law and international Arbitration rules, not local Lao regulations.

Three Reminders for Investors in Laos

First, every stage in the Arbitration procedure has its "window period," and it is difficult to make up for missing it. Second, the enforcement stage is not a place to re-try substantive Disputes; trying to overturn enforcement with new reasons has an extremely high threshold. Third, how to sign the fee arrangement with Lawyers and whether to disclose it should be thought through before initiating the procedure, rather than waiting for the other party to make an issue of it.

If you are doing Investment, signing Contracts in Laos, or already involved in Arbitration, rather than seeking remedies afterward, it is better to clarify the procedural nodes in advance. Such cross-border enforcement issues are often interlinked—for example, the previous article "Won Arbitration but Can't Get the Money? A Thai Company Chases the Lao Government for the Award, How to Pass the UK Court" also discusses the same type of dilemma.

If you have specific questions, you can directly go to https://www.123laoai.com to ask AI for free, explain the case clearly, and first understand where you stand.

This article is compiled by 老法智 LaoPaniti for reference only and does not constitute legal advice.

FAQ

After obtaining an Arbitral Award, if the other party does not voluntarily perform, where should I apply for enforcement?

Enforcement usually requires an application to a Court with jurisdiction. The specific country and Court depend on the type of Arbitration, the place where the award was made, and the location of the other party's assets. In this case, the enforcement procedure was conducted in the Singapore International Commercial Court. It is recommended to first confirm where the other party's assets are located before deciding on the enforcement location.

Can reasons not raised in the previous Arbitration procedure be raised again at the enforcement stage?

The answer given in this case tends to be no. The Court found that the Company failed to timely raise the fee agreement issue in the previous setting aside procedure and raising it again in the enforcement procedure constituted an abuse of process. Procedural timing issues are often more critical than the reasons themselves.

If the other party did not disclose the fee agreement with the Lawyer, does it count as fraud?

In this case, the Court did not support this claim, holding that the fee cap agreement did not need to be disclosed and did not constitute a reason to refuse enforcement of the ICSID Arbitral Award. Whether such a claim can be established depends on specific facts and applicable Law and cannot be generalized.

Legal basis

《UNCITRAL国际商事仲裁示范法》第34(3)条

需要人办？相关服务在线提交 · ບໍລິການທີ່ກ່ຽວຂ້ອງ · Get it done

合同律师快审ກວດສັນຍາໂດຍທະນາຍແບບໄວ

律师/顾问对合同关键条款、风险点和修改方向做快速复核。

在线提交需求 · ສົ່ງຄຳຂໍອອນລາຍ →

商业经营合规顾问

围绕经营事项梳理公司、用工、税费、合同收款、商标保护和门店合规风险，形成可跟进的服务清单。