In brief
The Singapore High Court refused to enforce an emergency interim award made by a CIETAC emergency arbitrator in Zhejiang Crystal-Optech Co Ltd v Moveon Technologies Pte Ltd [2026] SGHC 186. The arbitration was seated in the People's Republic of China (PRC ) and administered under the CIETAC Rules. The Court held that under PRC law, an emergency arbitrator in a PRC-seated arbitration has no power to grant interim measures unless such power is conferred by the law of the seat (i.e., PRC law) or by the parties' express agreement. As PRC law reserves the power to order preservation measures to the PRC courts, and the parties' agreement to the CIETAC Rules alone did not amount to an express agreement conferring this power, the emergency arbitrator had exceeded the scope of the submission to arbitration by purporting to exercise a power it did not have. Enforcement of the emergency interim award was accordingly refused.
Key takeaways
- The Court held that "applicable law" under Article 23(2) of the CIETAC Rules means the law of the seat and not the law of the place where enforcement is sought. PRC law does not empower arbitral tribunals or emergency arbitrators to grant interim or preservation measures (whether over property, evidence or conduct), which is a power reserved exclusively to the PRC courts and not arbitral tribunals.
- Mere consent to arbitration under the CIETAC Rules may not, by itself, be sufficient to constitute the parties' "agreement" empowering an emergency arbitrator to grant interim measures; a distinct agreement to that effect is required.
- Parties who anticipate needing urgent interim measures in a PRC-seated arbitration should consider applying directly to the competent PRC court, rather than relying solely on an emergency arbitrator. If they foresee that urgent relief will likely be required in an overseas jurisdiction, they should consider where the arbitration should be seated as not every jurisdiction may likely grant interim measures in aid of foreign arbitration or enforce interim measures ordered by an emergency arbitrator or tribunal in a PRC-seated arbitration.
- The Court separately rejected challenges to the enforcement of the emergency interim award based on breach of natural justice, non-arbitrability and public policy, underscoring the high threshold for resisting enforcement on those grounds.
What happened
Zhejiang Crystal-Optech Co Ltd (COT) and Moveon Technologies Pte Ltd ("Moveon") were joint venture partners in a Singapore company (CMOT) established to develop a lens-manufacturing project. Following the project's termination, COT applied to wind up CMOT. In CMOT's liquidation, following negotiations between Moveon and the liquidators, CMOT's liquidators agreed to admit a SGD 19.4 million claim by Moveon against CMOT in relation to claims for expenses which it incurred on behalf of CMOT. CMOT's liquidators thereafter applied to the Court to be permitted to enter into a compromise with Moveon. The Court granted the order sought by the liquidators, which COT unsuccessfully tried to set aside. COT then commenced a CIETAC arbitration against Moveon in the PRC, alleging that Moveon had breached the parties' JV agreements, and simultaneously applied for emergency interim measures to prevent Moveon from receiving CMOT's disputed claim of over SGD 19.8 million ("Disputed Claim").
The CIETAC emergency arbitrator issued an emergency interim award restraining Moveon from receiving the Disputed Claim in CMOT's liquidation pending the outcome of the arbitration. COT thereafter successfully obtained an order from the Singapore High Court granting permission to enforce the emergency interim award against Moveon in Singapore ("Enforcement Order"). Subsequently, Moveon applied to set aside the Enforcement Order on four grounds under section 31 of the International Arbitration Act 1994 (IAA): (i) it was unable to present its case; (ii) the award dealt with matters outside the scope of the submission to arbitration; (iii) the dispute was not arbitrable; and (iv) enforcement would be contrary to public policy.
The Court allowed Moveon's application to set aside the Enforcement Order solely on the outside-the-scope-of-submission ground. Having heard competing PRC law expert evidence, the Court found that PRC law does not confer on arbitral tribunals or emergency arbitrators any power to order preservation measures. This power is reserved to the PRC courts under the PRC Arbitration Law and Civil Procedure Law. Notably, this remains unchanged even under the revised Arbitration Law which took effect on 1 March 2026. The Court also rejected the argument that the law of the place of enforcement (Singapore) could form part of the "applicable law" for the purposes of Article 23(2) of the CIETAC Rules, holding that an arbitral tribunal's powers cannot vary depending on where a party declares its intent to enforce the emergency arbitrator's orders. As the parties had not otherwise expressly agreed to empower the emergency arbitrator to grant interim measures, the emergency arbitrator had exceeded its authority in issuing the emergency interim award, and enforcement was refused under section 31(2)(d) of the IAA.
For completeness, the Court considered and rejected Moveon's remaining grounds for its application. It found that Moveon had been given a fair opportunity to participate in the emergency arbitration proceedings but had chosen not to; that the dispute (being between joint venture partners, rather than one arising from CMOT's insolvency regime) was arbitrable; and that enforcement of the emergency interim award would not be contrary to Singapore public policy. However, as Moveon succeeded on the out-of-scope-of-submission ground, the Court's findings in this regard were not dispositive.
Why it matters
Many commercial contracts involving PRC counterparties contain a CIETAC arbitration clause or an arbitration clause referring to other arbitration institutions with a PRC seat, often on the assumption that emergency arbitrator relief will be available if needed. This decision confirms that such relief may not, in fact, be available or enforceable in Singapore. This is because PRC law (as the governing procedural law and as interpreted by the Singapore Court) does not confer the necessary power on emergency arbitrators, and institutional rules alone may not supply it in the absence of a distinct agreement between parties over and beyond consent to the arbitral institutional rules.
Given PRC law is not clear on its meaning, the judgment also provides useful guidance on the Singapore Court's approach to identifying the "applicable law" for the purposes of an emergency arbitrator's jurisdiction under the CIETAC Rules. As a matter of Singapore law, the "applicable law" for the purposes of Article 23(2) of the CIETAC Rules refers to the law of the seat and not the law of the place where enforcement is sought. This is likely to be of broader relevance to parties structuring dispute resolution clauses for PRC-related transactions.
Arbitration rules of other major PRC arbitration institutions contain similar but slightly different language in this respect. For instance, under the rules of the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration and Shanghai Arbitration Commission, it is specified that emergency arbitrator relief is available under "the law applicable to the arbitration". Under the rules of the Beijing Arbitration Commission and Shanghai International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, "relevant laws" are referred to for the availability of emergency arbitrator reliefs. For PRC-seated arbitration, the issue regarding whether emergency arbitrator interim measures are enforceable outside the PRC remains uncertain.
Recommended actions
- Review dispute resolution clauses in contracts with a nexus to PRC. Where urgent interim measures may be important, consider seating the arbitration in a jurisdiction where tribunals and emergency arbitrators are clearly conferred powers to grant interim measures under the law of the seat.
- If a PRC seat is required or preferred, consider including an express agreement empowering an emergency arbitrator or tribunal to grant interim measures, while taking into consideration that there may be limitations as to the effectiveness of such an agreement.
- Where urgent interim measures are needed in a PRC-seated arbitration, consider making an application directly to the competent PRC court, which retains exclusive power to grant preservation measures. If urgent relief may be required in an overseas jurisdiction, consider where the arbitration should be seated as not every jurisdiction may likely grant interim measures in aid of foreign arbitration or enforce interim measures ordered by an emergency arbitrator or tribunal in a PRC-seated arbitration.
-----------
1 Consistent with the Court's reasoning and for the purpose of this article, PRC as a jurisdiction refers to mainland China, excluding Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and Macau Special Administrative Region.
* * * * *
Yanfei Zeng, Partner, and James Kwong, Senior Associate, have contributed to this legal update.
© 2026 Baker & McKenzie. Wong & Leow. All rights reserved. Baker & McKenzie. Wong & Leow is incorporated with limited liability and is a member firm of Baker & McKenzie International, a global law firm with member law firms around the world. In accordance with the common terminology used in professional service organizations, reference to a "principal" means a person who is a partner, or equivalent, in such a law firm. Similarly, reference to an "office" means an office of any such law firm. This may qualify as "Attorney Advertising" requiring notice in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.