Four say YES: • The arbitral tribunal in ICC Case 10619 considered that it was simply the law of the contract. • This reasoning appears to have been followed in the DBF case. • A sole arbitrator in ICC Case 16948/GZ, said a final award was OK (this is contrary to the Court of Appeal in Singapore’s guidance). • A sole arbitrator in ICC Case 15751/JHN considered that a party should be required to pay that sum decided by the DAB and interest from the date when payment was due by way of damages for breach. Three say NO: • The Court of Appeal in Singapore (CRW v PGN) say NO in relation to a final award (and upheld the High Court’s decision to set aside the arbitral tribunal’s award, which was enforced by way of a final award) but, obiter, suggest that as long as the merits are placed before the arbitral tribunal, in principle, an interim or partial award enforcing should be possible. • A sole arbitrator in ICC Case 16119/GZ suggests that a partial final award and consequently also a final award are inappropriate devices to allow enforcement but suggests, obiter, that an interim award might be effective. • The sole arbitrator in ICC Case 16949/GZ concluded that damages could not include the sum adjudged as due by the DAB and so declined to enforce.