International arbitration does not always end with the issuance of an arbitral award. Parties often enter post-award settlement agreements regulating how awards will be satisfied, particularly through structured payment arrangements or negotiated enforcement terms. While these agreements may encourage compliance and avoid immediate enforcement proceedings, they can also create new disputes where a party alleges breach or relies on external circumstances to justify non-performance. Courts may then need to determine whether disputes arising from post-award arrangements must first be arbitrated before enforcement can proceed.
This issue arose before the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) in DKB v DKC [2025] SGHC(I) 11 and DKB v DKC [2025] SGHC(I) 14. The decisions considered whether disputes concerning compliance with a post-award settlement agreement could temporarily halt enforcement proceedings where the agreement contained its own arbitration clause.
The dispute stemmed from a Swiss-seated arbitration whose award was later assigned to DKB under a Stay and Settlement Deed. DKC agreed to satisfy the award through instalment payments, while DKB agreed to suspend enforcement efforts. The Settlement Deed also required disputes to be resolved under the Expedited Arbitration Rules of the SCC Arbitration Institute.
After DKC allegedly failed to comply with its payment obligations, DKB commenced enforcement proceedings under section 29 of Singapore’s International Arbitration Act 1994 (IAA). DKC resisted enforcement, arguing that US sanctions prevented lawful payment and that disputes relating to the Settlement Deed had to be arbitrated in Stockholm.
In DKB v DKC [2025] SGHC(I) 11, the SICC held that the dispute was prima facie covered by the arbitration agreement. Applying section 6 of the IAA, the court reaffirmed that stay applications do not require courts to assess substantive merits; it is enough that the dispute arguably falls within the arbitration agreement. The court further held that section 31 of the IAA did not prevent a stay where parties had agreed to post-award obligations affecting enforcement. The SICC stayed enforcement proceedings on condition that DKC commence expedited arbitration within ten days and diligently pursue it.
However, in DKB v DKC [2025] SGHC(I) 14, DKC failed to meet that deadline without sufficient justification. Despite this, the court granted additional time, considering the size of the claim, the parties’ agreement to arbitrate, and the limited prejudice to DKB.
The decisions highlight the importance of carefully drafted settlement agreements, particularly regarding breach consequences, enforcement rights, and risks such as sanctions or force majeure events. They also reinforce Singapore’s pro-arbitration approach, with courts willing to stay proceedings where disputes are prima facie covered by arbitration agreements.
