Matter note: a supply or manufacturing Singapore

Supply and manufacturing contracts crossing the Hong Kong–Singapore corridor look straightforward on paper. Both jurisdictions are common-law, both are arbitration-friendly, and both have sophisticated commercial courts. The difficulty, in our corporate-counsel practice, is not the headline law. It is the governing-law and forum clause that the parties draft in five minutes, and the day-two operating reality that clause has to carry for years.

This matter note describes an anonymised engagement. No client-identifying facts appear. The structure of the problem, the route chosen, and the transferable lesson are what matter here.

What was the situation, and why did the constraint arise?

A mid-sized Asian manufacturing group – incorporated in Hong Kong, with production capacity split across a Mainland-affiliated facility and a wholly owned entity in a third jurisdiction – entered preliminary discussions with a Singapore-based distributor. The distributor had significant regional reach and wanted exclusivity. The group's in-house team had a draft contract on file. That draft had been prepared originally for a domestic context and had never been tested on a cross-border counterparty.

The constraint was not exotic. It was the kind of constraint we see regularly. The group's commercial deadline was firm: the Singapore party had indicated that a competing supplier was in the room. Completion of the term sheet and the main supply agreement within a defined window was, in the group's assessment, the difference between a regional distribution relationship and losing the account entirely. Speed created pressure. Pressure created shortcuts. Shortcuts on governing law and forum are, in our experience, the source of most contract disputes that should never have become disputes at all.

The draft agreement said "Singapore law" in one clause and "Hong Kong courts" in another. No thought had been given to which court would actually accept jurisdiction under that combination. No thought had been given to what "exclusive" meant for the forum clause or how a Hong Kong judgment would be used against a Singapore-incorporated entity if the relationship broke down. The internal team flagged the inconsistency but did not have the cross-border bandwidth to resolve it before the board's self-imposed signing deadline.

What was the core legal issue, and what route did we choose?

The core issue was a compound one: a mismatch between governing law and forum, combined with an exclusivity structure that the contract did not adequately define or protect.

On the governing-law and forum point, the combination of Singapore governing law with Hong Kong courts is not inherently invalid. Courts in both jurisdictions regularly apply foreign law as pleaded and proved. But the practical consequences of that choice run deeper than the abstract legal question. If the group ever needed to enforce a Hong Kong judgment against the Singapore distributor's Singapore assets – or vice versa – the parties would be operating outside any mutual-enforcement treaty. The two jurisdictions do not have a bilateral regime for the reciprocal enforcement of judgments in the way that Hong Kong and the Mainland have since 29 January 2024 under the Mainland Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap. 645). A Hong Kong judgment against a Singapore party requires fresh proceedings in Singapore, or registration under Singapore's own regime for foreign judgments – a process that carries its own conditions and is not automatic.

The route we chose was to re-centre the agreement on a single legal system for both governing law and forum, and to use arbitration as the dispute-resolution mechanism rather than litigation. The reason is practical. An arbitral award made in Hong Kong – seated under the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609), which is modelled on the UNCITRAL Model Law – can be enforced in Singapore under the New York Convention. Singapore is a New York Convention contracting state. So is Hong Kong. An award, unlike a court judgment, travels on that treaty basis. For a cross-border supply relationship of this kind, that is a material structural advantage.

We recommended HKIAC-administered arbitration, Hong Kong seat, Hong Kong law as governing law. The HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules (in force in their current form since 1 June 2024) include provisions for emergency relief, which was relevant given the group's concern about the exclusivity clause: if the Singapore party had breached exclusivity, the group needed the ability to seek urgent interim measures, not a twelve-month wait for a full hearing.

The sequence above describes the standard position. Your matter turns on the documents, the jurisdictions actually engaged, and the order of steps – which is where the route is won or lost. For a structured assessment of your governing-law and forum position across the Hong Kong–Singapore corridor, write to us at info@lockhartyip.com.

How did the sequence unfold, and where was the turning point?

We were brought in at the term-sheet stage, which is the right moment. That said, we have seen this type of matter brought to us considerably later – sometimes after a draft has been initialled, occasionally after it has been signed. Late instruction is manageable; it simply changes the options available.

The first step was a read of the existing draft. Three structural problems emerged. First, the governing-law and forum mismatch already described. Second, an exclusivity clause that defined the territory by reference to a list of countries but said nothing about what happened if the distributor created a subsidiary or affiliate in a country not on the list. Third, a payment term that referenced a currency without specifying the account jurisdiction – relevant because the group's treasury function sat in Hong Kong and the distributor's payment history suggested settlement from a third-jurisdiction account.

We re-drafted those three provisions. The governing-law clause was made consistent: Hong Kong law throughout, with a clear statement that the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) was excluded. CISG exclusion is standard in commercial contracts between sophisticated parties and is worth naming explicitly rather than leaving to implication. The forum clause was replaced with an arbitration clause referencing HKIAC-administered arbitration, Hong Kong seat, English as the language of the proceedings.

The turning point was the Singapore party's response to the revised draft. Their in-house team pushed back on the arbitration seat. Their preference was Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) arbitration, Singapore seat, Singapore law. This is not an unreasonable position for a Singapore counterparty. SIAC is a well-regarded institution and Singapore is a mature arbitral seat. The question was whether the group's enforcement interests were better served by the Hong Kong seat or the Singapore seat – given that the group's primary assets, and its operating entity, were in Hong Kong.

The answer, in this instance, was Hong Kong. The group's exposure in a dispute scenario was primarily as claimant – seeking to enforce payment obligations against the Singapore distributor. An award from a Hong Kong-seated arbitration is enforceable in Singapore under the New York Convention, in the same way as a Singapore-seated award would be enforceable in Hong Kong. The seat did not change the enforcement dynamic in either direction. What it did change was the availability of interim measures: under the Arrangement Concerning Mutual Assistance in Court-ordered Interim Measures in Aid of Arbitral Proceedings by the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong SAR, which came into effect on 1 October 2019, parties to Hong Kong-seated arbitrations may apply to Mainland courts for interim measures. That option – relevant given the group's Mainland-affiliated facility and the possibility of Mainland counterparty involvement in future contract chains – was only available with a Hong Kong seat.

The Singapore party accepted the Hong Kong seat on the basis that the group agreed to a neutral appointing mechanism if the presiding arbitrator was to be non-Asian: a fair commercial compromise. The exclusivity clause was redrafted to capture affiliates and subsidiaries by reference to a control test rather than a named list. The payment term was anchored to the group's Hong Kong account, with a defined fallback for cross-currency settlement.

If an earlier filing, structure or enforcement attempt produced an adverse or stalled result, a second read can identify the strategic error and the routes still open. Write to us at info@lockhartyip.com to discuss what the available options look like from where you stand.

What was the outcome, and what is the transferable lesson?

The supply agreement was signed within the group's commercial window. The distribution relationship proceeded. No arbitration has been commenced. That is, of course, the hoped-for outcome of well-drafted contracts: they are never used in anger.

The qualitative lesson is the one we take from this type of engagement regularly. Cross-border supply and manufacturing contracts between Hong Kong and Singapore are often drafted with less structural care than the relationships they govern warrant. Both jurisdictions share a common-law tradition, a sophisticated commercial culture, and a deep familiarity with international arbitration. That shared background creates a false confidence. The parties assume the legal environment is effectively identical and that the governing-law and forum clause is a formality. It is not.

The governing-law clause determines which court applies which law when the contract is disputed – and, more practically, which lawyers the opposing party needs to instruct. The forum clause determines where the dispute is heard, how long it takes, and – critically – where and how any resulting award or judgment can be enforced. For a relationship with assets, treasury functions, and production capacity spread across Hong Kong, the Mainland, and a third jurisdiction, those questions have material commercial consequences.

A second lesson is the value of the CISG exclusion. The Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods applies by default to commercial contracts between parties in contracting states, unless excluded. Both Hong Kong (as part of the PRC's accession) and Singapore are within CISG contracting states' orbit in relevant ways. Sophisticated parties typically exclude the CISG because its implied terms interact poorly with carefully negotiated quality, inspection, and rejection provisions. Leaving the exclusion implicit is a common drafting error that creates ambiguity when disputes arise over rejection of non-conforming goods.

A third lesson concerns the exclusivity structure. Manufacturing and supply contracts that include exclusivity provisions need to define territory, duration, and the consequences of sub-threshold performance in the same clause. Leaving these to separate schedules, or to good faith implied by the governing law, creates disputes that are expensive to resolve and damaging to the underlying commercial relationship. In our cross-border practice, exclusivity disputes are among the most common reasons parties end up in arbitration when the relationship could have continued.

Related to these lessons is the timing point. We were brought in at the term-sheet stage. Had we been brought in after signing – as occasionally happens – the room for structural correction would have been limited to re-negotiation or, if the other party refused, a strategic assessment of the enforcement position under the contract as it stood. Early instruction is not a luxury; it is the point at which cross-border counsel adds the most value.

For further context on how governing-law and forum clauses interact with enforcement routes, see our Corporate Counsel practice page. For related reading on international joint venture and shareholders' agreement structures, the following materials may also be useful: our Cyprus joint-venture briefing and our UK joint-venture matter note.

Related practices

Disputes & Arbitration – international arbitration, award enforcement, and interim relief across jurisdictions
M&A & Transactions – cross-border transaction structuring, due diligence, and deal documentation

Frequently asked questions

What documents are needed for a supply or manufacturing contract with a Singapore party?

The core document is the supply or manufacturing agreement itself, incorporating governing-law and forum clauses, payment terms, quality and inspection provisions, and – where relevant – exclusivity terms. Supporting documents typically include a term sheet or heads of agreement, any related confidentiality undertakings, and, in manufacturing contexts, quality-assurance schedules and intellectual property assignment or licence provisions. Where the contract provides for arbitration, an agreed arbitration clause referencing the chosen institution, seat, and language is essential. Parties should also consider whether the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods requires explicit exclusion on the facts of their arrangement.

Do I need a Hong Kong adviser for a supply or manufacturing contract with a Singapore party?

If the group has a Hong Kong entity as a contracting party, Hong Kong assets or treasury functions at risk, or a Mainland-affiliated supply chain in the structure, then a cross-border adviser with a Hong Kong desk adds material value. The governing-law and forum clause needs to be assessed against where the enforcement risk actually sits – not simply drafted in favour of whichever party's in-house template was used first. Singapore counsel covers Singapore law; a Hong Kong-based international adviser assesses the cross-border interface, including the enforceability of any award or judgment in each relevant jurisdiction.

Which jurisdiction's law applies to a supply or manufacturing contract with a Singapore party?

The parties choose the governing law in the contract. Both Hong Kong law and Singapore law are well-developed commercial systems suited to supply and manufacturing relationships. The choice should be driven by where the enforcement risk sits, the jurisdiction of the contracting entities, the applicable dispute-resolution mechanism, and any Mainland dimension to the supply chain. Where arbitration is the chosen dispute-resolution route, the seat determines which national courts supervise the arbitration – a separate question from governing law. Parties should verify the current position on CISG applicability and exclusion before finalising either choice.

Speak with Lockhart & Yip

For a scoped view of your matter, contact info@lockhartyip.com. Discuss your matter →

This publication is general information and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your situation, contact info@lockhartyip.com.

Matter note: a supply or manufacturing contract with a Singapore party