In Zhejiang Crystal-Optech Co Ltd v Moveon Technologies Pte Ltd [2026] SGHC 186, the High Court of Singapore set aside an order granting permission to enforce an interim award made by a CIETAC emergency arbitrator in a Chinese Mainland-seated arbitration. The Court found that an emergency arbitrator’s authority depends on the law of the seat and the parties’ agreement, and not only on the availability of an emergency-arbitrator procedure in institutional rules. The decision also highlights the risks associated with enforcement of interim awards made by emergency arbitrators.
Background
In 2021, Zhejiang Crystal-Optech Co Ltd (“COT”), a Chinese Mainland company, and Moveon Technologies Pte Ltd (“Moveon”), a Singapore company, incorporated Crystal-Moveon Technologies Pte Ltd (“CMOT”), a joint-venture company through which they intended to collaborate on the manufacture of “lens cap” components for Apple Inc. In this regard, the parties entered into a cooperation framework agreement (“CFA”) and a joint venture agreement (“JVA”), both dated 7 October 2021.
Moveon subsequently bore a significant part of CMOT’s upfront costs, including by purchasing the equipment and machinery required for the project.
In or about June 2022, Apple Inc. terminated the project. In June 2023, Moveon commenced a suit against CMOT for the upfront expenses. CMOT was subsequently wound up. On 21 January 2025, Moveon and CMOT’s liquidators entered into a settlement agreement (“Settlement Agreement”) to settle Moveon’s claims. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, CMOT’s liquidators admitted Moveon’s proof of debt in the sum of S$19,423,680.54 (“Settlement Sum”).
COT commenced emergency arbitration proceedings against Moveon before the CIETAC Shanghai Sub-Commission. COT subsequently commenced substantive arbitration proceedings under the CFA and the JVA. CIETAC appointed an emergency arbitrator (“EA”) pursuant to the CIETAC Arbitration Rules.
On 12 August 2025, the EA issued an interim award (“Interim Award”) requiring Moveon to maintain the status quo and prohibiting Moveon from receiving the Settlement Sum pending the arbitral tribunal’s determination of the substantive disputes between the parties.
COT obtained an ex parte permission to enforce the Interim Award in Singapore (“Enforcement Order”). Moveon applied to set aside the Enforcement Order.
The Court’s reasoning in brief
Philip Jeyaretnam J, sitting in the Singapore High Court, set aside the Enforcement Order.
The Court first addressed the preliminary issue of the nature of the Interim Award. It held that the Interim Award was capable of qualifying as a “foreign award” under Singapore’s International Arbitration Act (“IAA”). Under section 27(1) of the IAA, a “foreign award” is defined as “an arbitral award made pursuant to an arbitration agreement in the territory of a [New York Convention] country other than Singapore”, and an “arbitral award” is defined in the same provision as including “an order or a direction made or given by an arbitral tribunal in the course of an arbitration in respect of any of the matters set out in section 12(1)(c) to (j) [of the IAA]”. The relevant provisions in section 12 of the IAA in turn provide that such orders can be for the preservation of assets (s.12(1)(d)), “ensuring that any award which may be made in arbitral proceedings is not rendered ineffectual by the dissipation of assets by a party” (s.12(1)(h)) or “any other interim measure” (s.12(1)(i)). The Interim Award issued by the EA satisfied these definitions.
Nevertheless, the Enforcement Order was set aside because the Court found that the EA had no power to issue the Interim Award under PRC law. Accordingly, the Singapore Court found that the EA had dealt with a dispute not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, which justified refusing enforcement of the Interim Award under sections 31(1) and 31(2)(d) of the IAA, which provide:
“(1) In any proceedings in which the enforcement of a foreign award is sought by virtue of this Part, the party against whom the enforcement is sought may request that the enforcement be refused, and the enforcement in any of the cases mentioned in subsections (2) and (4) may be refused but not otherwise.
(2) A court so requested may refuse enforcement of a foreign award if the person against whom enforcement is sought proves to the satisfaction of the court that –
(d) … the award deals with a difference not contemplated by, or not falling within the terms of, the submission to arbitration or contains a decision on the matter beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration;”
The Court held that the crucial provision was Article 23(2) of the CIETAC Rules, which provides:
“In accordance with the applicable law or the agreement of the parties, a party may apply to the Arbitration Court for emergency relief pursuant to the CIETAC Emergency Arbitrator Procedures (Appendix III). The emergency arbitrator may decide to order or award necessary or appropriate emergency measures. The decision of the emergency arbitrator shall be binding upon both parties.”
The Court considered that Article 23(2) applies in either of two situations: first, where the application for emergency relief accords with the applicable law; or, second, where it accords with the parties’ agreement.
- Whether the application for emergency relief accords with PRC law
The Court held that the emergency arbitrator’s power had to be determined by the law of the seat, here PRC law. On the PRC-law evidence before it, the Court concluded that preservation measures were reserved to the PRC courts, and that PRC law did not confer the relevant power on arbitral tribunals or emergency arbitrators.
- Whether the application for emergency relief was made in accordance with the parties’ agreement
The Court held that the parties’ general agreement to CIETAC arbitration and the CIETAC Rules was not, by itself, a sufficiently distinct agreement to confer the power contemplated in Article 23(2) of those Rules, which separately referred to “the agreement of the parties”. The arbitration clauses in the CFA and JVA did not contain any express agreement that emergency arbitrators would have power to grant interim measures.
Based on those findings, the Court concluded that the EA had no power to issue the Interim Award. That amounted to the EA exceeding his authority, rendering the Enforcement Order liable to be set aside.
Comments
The PRC Arbitration Law reserves the power to grant interim measures—referred to under PRC law as preservation measures—to the courts of the Chinese Mainland rather than arbitral tribunals. This is a distinctive feature of the PRC arbitration regime when compared with the arbitration laws of many other jurisdictions, particularly those based on the UNCITRAL Model Law. The PRC Arbitration Law was substantially revised in 2025, introducing reforms including formal recognition of the seat of arbitration in foreign-related cases, limited recognition of ad hoc arbitration, and broader scope for foreign arbitral institutions to operate in designated areas. It nevertheless retained the requirement that preservation measures in support of arbitration be sought through the courts. In our view, this reflects the historical development and present circumstances of China’s socio-economic and arbitration framework.
China is vast and populous, and levels of socio-economic development vary significantly across regions. There are more than 280 arbitration commissions nationwide. Achieving consistency in the exercise of discretion across different localities is itself a considerable challenge. Preservation measures are determined before the parties have fully presented the evidence and legal arguments in the case, and inconsistent standards may cause loss or other adverse consequences. Against that background, the Arbitration Law reserves this form of judicial control to the courts rather than arbitral tribunals. This legislative approach is consistent with other traditional features of the PRC arbitration framework—such as its historical emphasis on institutional arbitration and the use by arbitral institutions of panels of arbitrators—and is intended to safeguard the effectiveness, professionalism and consistency of the arbitration system as a whole.
As cross-border economic activity and demand for international arbitration have increased, leading Chinese arbitral institutions have progressively modernised their rules. One important development has been the inclusion of provisions empowering arbitral tribunals to order interim measures, with party consent forming the legal foundation for that authority. CIETAC subsequently introduced its emergency-arbitrator procedure in its 2015 Rules, through Article 23 and Appendix III, to address requests for urgent interim relief before constitution of the tribunal. Both tribunal-ordered interim measures and emergency-arbitrator procedures have been welcomed and used by parties where appropriate, expanding the procedural options available in arbitrations seated in the Chinese Mainland.
The decision in Zhejiang Crystal-Optech is a Singapore judgment concerning enforcement of an interim award made by a CIETAC emergency arbitrator. One of the key findings of the Court is that Article 23(2) of the CIETAC Rules did not, by itself, constitute the parties’ agreement to confer authority on an emergency arbitrator. One practical response is for parties to state expressly in their arbitration clause that the tribunal may order interim measures, that the relevant institution—such as CIETAC—may appoint an emergency arbitrator, and that any resulting order or award will be binding on the parties.
The case is, however, one decision of the Singapore court concerning enforcement of an award made by a CIETAC emergency arbitrator. It does not follow that courts in other jurisdictions will necessarily refuse to enforce comparable awards or orders made by emergency arbitrators appointed by institutions in the Chinese Mainland. Nor should the judgment be treated as a wholesale rejection of the present PRC arbitration system or the rules of Chinese arbitral institutions. It is nevertheless an important precedent of a foreign court examining the authority of a tribunal or emergency arbitrator to grant interim measures in an arbitration seated in the Chinese Mainland, and it provides useful guidance for arbitration practitioners and users.
For more information, please contact the authors of this article, Stella Hu or Tim Chu.