ST Group Co. v. Sanum Investments Limited

Sanum Investments Limited (Sanum) (plaintiff) entered into a series of agreements with several related entities (the related entities) (defendants). Sanum operated in the gaming industry, and the agreements were related to the operation of a slot club. The agreements provided for the related entities to turn over the club to Sanum after a certain period of time. A dispute arose as to what exact date the related entities needed to turn over the club, and other disputes followed. Under the master agreement, the parties agreed to resolve any disputes through arbitration “using an internationally recognized mediation/arbitration company in Macau, SAR PRC.” The parties could not reach an agreement, and Sanum began arbitration proceedings in Laos, then in Singapore. The related entities protested the arbitration proceedings, noting, among other things, that the master agreement provided for arbitration in Macau. Eventually, the arbitration tribunal made an award in favor of Sanum. Sanum successfully sought to enforce that award. The related entities challenged the award, arguing in part that the location of the arbitration was not consistent with the arbitration agreement and that the award should therefore be set aside. The lower court agreed that the seat of the arbitration should have been in Macau, but the court found that this procedural irregularity did not require setting aside the award because the related entities had not shown prejudice. The related parties appealed the order, arguing, among other things, that the improper location of the arbitration required the award to be set aside.