A Bermuda court has ruled that an $18.5 million Singapore arbitration hearing decision is binding on a Bermuda-based conglomerate.

Chief Justice Ian Kawaley ruled in Supreme Court that Sampoerna Strategic Holdings had to comply with the order from an arbitration hearing in Singapore.

And the ruling is being seen as a commitment by the Bermuda courts to support arbitration in disputes over court proceedings in international commercial cases.

Now the Bermuda firm has to pay the cash to Hong Kong firm Huawei Tech Investment and Huawei International, of Singapore — said to be owed for the supply of goods — as well as costs, or face winding-up proceedings.

In a written judgement released at the weekend, Mr Kawaley said that “it was clear that the respondent had not raised any seriously arguable foundation for declining to enforce the award on public policy grounds.

“And it was again perhaps unsurprising that the respondent did not have the temerity to seek to pursue this ground of challenge to the decision of the Singaporean tribunal before the Singaporean courts.”

Mr Kawaley issued his judgement as he dismissed the Sampoerna Holdings claim that it had ben denied its natural justice rights — the chance to plead its case at the Singapore arbitration hearing.

His decision upheld an earlier Bermuda court ruling that the two firms could enter judgement in terms of the award.

Lawyers David Kessaram, of Cox Hallett Wilkinson, who appeared for the two applicants with Lilla Zuill, said the ruling backed arbitration as an alternative means of settling cases.

He added: “The Bermuda debtor company sought to set aside the order on the basis that there was a denial of natural justice rights in the arbitration proceedings in Singapore.

“It claimed that the arbitration tribunal’s decision dealt with an issue that was outside the scope of the questions the tribunal was asked to decide and that the arbitration tribunal based its decision on a matter that was not pleaded in the statement of claim.”

But Mr Kessaram said: “However, the Chief Justice held that, although the issue had not been expressly pleaded, it was dealt with in the evidence and in the oral and written submissions of the parties in the arbitration hearing.

“The Chief Justice treated the debtor company’s point as a purely technical one. He held that there was no denial of the Bermuda company’s natural justice rights, namely the opportunity to present its case in the arbitration.

“The Chief Justice therefore dismissed the Bermuda company’s application leaving it open for the award creditors to enforce their rights to payment in Bermuda.”