International arbitration awards are generally difficult to undo these days, given the legislative and judicial trend in many countries to take a restrictive approach towards review and appeals from such awards. However, where a costs award is made and there may be serious questions as to how those costs were arrived at by an arbitrator, an argument may be made that enforcement of such an award raises public policy concerns. This article examines two recent Singapore cases discussing the public policy ground under Singapore’s International Arbitration Act, one of which relates directly to an award on costs. It explores whether a too restrictive approach to this ground might prove counter–productive to the overall objective of promoting arbitration as a method of dispute resolution.