Introduction
In a decision dated 8 July 2026, the Arbitrazh Court of Moscow in case number A40-20468/24-19-154 rendered a judgment on the reopening of Russian recognition and enforcement proceedings following the partial setting aside of a SIAC award by the Singapore Court of Appeal in Vietnam Oil and Gas Group v Joint Stock Company (Power Machines – ZTL, LMZ, Electrosila Energomachexport) [2025] SGCA 50.
The three decisions form one procedural sequence, which is remarkable. First, the Moscow court recognised and enforced the SIAC final award in Russia on 2 October 2024 (and – rather unusual for a Russian court – could not find any violation of public policy). Then, on 10 October 2025, the Singapore Court of Appeal set aside paragraph 548 of the award and all consequential parts, because the tribunal had based its decision on facts not pleaded by either party. Finally, on 8 July 2026, the Moscow court treated the Singapore judgment as a new circumstance and cancelled its earlier recognition order.
Factual Background
The dispute arose from an EPC contract for a thermal power plant project in Vietnam. Vietnam Oil and Gas Group, also referred to as Petrovietnam or PVN, was the project owner. Joint Stock Company Power Machines was a member of the contractor consortium.
The EPC contract was governed by Vietnamese law and contained an arbitration clause providing for SIAC arbitration in Singapore. The project was affected after Power Machines was placed on the United States sanctions list in January 2018. According to the Singapore Court of Appeal, this led many subcontractors to suspend performance.
Power Machines later issued two termination notices. The first notice, dated 28 January 2019, relied on force majeure under clause 19.6 of the contract. The second notice, dated 8 February 2019, relied on non-payment under clause 16.2(b).
On 30 November 2023, the SIAC tribunal issued Final Award No. 144 in SIAC arbitration No. 274 of 2019, ARB274/19/AB. The award was largely in favour of Power Machines. The Moscow recognition decision records that the tribunal ordered PVN to pay, among other sums, EUR 507,157.59, RUB 8,381,514,622.06, USD 422,598,017.46, VND 14,544,706,823.86, post-award interest, and substantial costs in several currencies.
Power Machines applied to the Arbitrazh Court of Moscow for recognition and enforcement in Russia. On 2 October 2024, the Moscow court granted the application. The court found no grounds for refusal under the New York Convention or Russian procedural law, and held that PVN’s objections were directed at the merits of the arbitration rather than at recognised refusal grounds. The court also stated that PVN’s initiation of Singapore set-aside proceedings was not itself a reason to refuse recognition and enforcement.
Legal Considerations
The first Moscow decision applied Chapter 31 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedure Code and the New York Convention. The court referred in particular to Article V of the Convention, including the grounds concerning invalidity of the arbitration agreement, lack of notice, excess of mandate, irregular composition or procedure, non-binding or set-aside awards, arbitrability, and public policy.
The Moscow court held that none of those refusal grounds had been established. It also emphasised that a Russian court hearing an application for recognition and enforcement may not review the foreign arbitral award on the merits.
The Singapore proceedings then changed the procedural position. In [2025] SGCA 50, the Singapore Court of Appeal considered whether parts of the SIAC award should be set aside because the tribunal had relied on reasoning that the parties had not fairly had the opportunity to address.
The key point was paragraph 548 of the SIAC award. The tribunal had reasoned that a valid second termination notice, issued while the contract was still in force, “overrides and supersedes the ineffective First Notice” and that Power Machines “must be taken to have intended” the second notice to replace or supplement the first notice.
The Singapore Court of Appeal held that this chain of reasoning did not have a sufficient nexus to the parties’ pleaded cases, submissions, or expert evidence on Vietnamese law. The court found that neither party’s expert evidence squarely addressed the scenario adopted by the tribunal, and that the factual finding about Power Machines’ intention was contrary to the position Power Machines had advanced in the arbitration.
The Singapore Court of Appeal therefore dismissed Power Machines’ appeal in CA 49 and allowed PVN’s appeal in CA 48. It set aside the High Court’s remission order and set aside paragraph 548 of the Final Award, together with all consequential parts of the award.
PVN then applied in Moscow to reopen the Russian recognition proceedings based on new circumstances. In its 8 July 2026 decision, the Arbitrazh Court of Moscow accepted that the Singapore Court of Appeal judgment was a material new circumstance under Articles 309 and 311 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedure Code.
The Moscow court held that where a competent foreign court has set aside an international arbitral award, that foreign court decision is recognised and applied by Russian courts when deciding whether to refuse recognition and enforcement of the annulled award in the disputed part. Since the SIAC award underlying the 2024 Russian recognition order had been partially set aside, the Moscow court cancelled its earlier order and listed the case for rehearing on 3 August 2026.
