Republic of India v Vedanta Resources: Confidentiality in Investment Treaty Arbitration

The Republic of India, plaintiff, sought declarations from the High Court of Singapore against Vedanta Resources plc, defendant, regarding the confidentiality of documents in an investment-treaty arbitration. The plaintiff intended to use these declarations to cross-disclose documents between the Vedanta Arbitration and a related Cairn Arbitration. The court, presided over by Vinodh Coomaraswamy J, dismissed the application, finding the declaratory relief unnecessary and unjustified.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Application Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The Republic of India sought declarations on confidentiality in arbitration. The court dismissed the application, finding declaratory relief unnecessary.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Republic of IndiaPlaintiffGovernment AgencyApplication DismissedLost
Vedanta Resources plcDefendantCorporationApplication DismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Vinodh CoomaraswamyJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Cavinder BullDrew & Napier LLC
Andre YeapRajah & Tann Singapore LLP

4. Facts

  1. The Republic of India and Vedanta Resources are parties in an investment-treaty arbitration seated in Singapore.
  2. The arbitration arises from a tax assessment order issued by Indian revenue authorities.
  3. India sought declarations to allow cross-disclosure of documents between the Vedanta Arbitration and a related Cairn Arbitration.
  4. The Vedanta tribunal had previously addressed the issue of confidentiality in procedural orders.
  5. The Cairn Arbitration is seated in the Netherlands and involves similar issues.
  6. The plaintiff sought declarations that documents disclosed in the Vedanta Arbitration are not confidential.
  7. The plaintiff sought declarations that disclosing documents in the Cairn Arbitration would not breach confidentiality obligations.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Republic of India v Vedanta Resources plc, Originating Summons No 980 of 2018, [2020] SGHC 208

6. Timeline

DateEvent
India-UK BIT signed
Cairn Group restructured its Indian assets
Cairn Group sold 100% of CIL to the defendant
Cairn commenced arbitration against the plaintiff
Vedanta commenced arbitration against the plaintiff
Cairn tribunal issued Procedural Order No. 10
Vedanta tribunal issued Procedural Order No. 3
Plaintiff applied to the Vedanta tribunal under VPO 3
Vedanta tribunal issued Procedural Order No. 6
Plaintiff applied urgently in the Vedanta Arbitration under VPO 3
Plaintiff filed this application
Vedanta tribunal issued Procedural Order No. 7
Argument Date
Argument Date
Argument Date
Argument Date
Judgment Date
Judgment Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Confidentiality in Arbitration
    • Outcome: The court declined to grant the declarations sought by the plaintiff regarding confidentiality, finding the relief unnecessary.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Extent of confidentiality obligation
      • Exceptions to confidentiality obligation
      • Cross-disclosure of documents
    • Related Cases:
      • [2011] 1 SLR 1093
  2. Court Intervention in Arbitration
    • Outcome: The court held that the plaintiff's application was not an abuse of process or a collateral attack, but declined to exercise its discretion to grant the relief sought.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Abuse of process
      • Collateral attack on tribunal decisions
      • Minimal curial intervention

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration that documents disclosed or generated in the Vedanta Arbitration are not “confidential or private”.
  2. Declaration that the plaintiff will not breach any obligation of confidentiality or privacy if it were to disclose for the purposes of the Cairn Arbitration any of the documents which were disclosed or generated in the Vedanta Arbitration.

9. Cause of Actions

  • Declaratory Relief

10. Practice Areas

  • Arbitration
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Anwar Siraj and another v Ting Kang Chung and anotherHigh CourtYes[2003] 2 SLR(R) 287SingaporeCited for the principle that an arbitrator is the master of his own procedure, subject to agreement between the parties and mandatory procedural norms.
PT Pukuafu Indah and others v Newmont Indonesia Ltd and anotherHigh CourtYes[2012] 4 SLR 1157SingaporeCited for the principle that a court cannot nullify a tribunal’s procedural order and that a tribunal has the power to reconsider and revise a procedural order.
Charles M Willie & Co (Shipping) Ltd v Ocean Laser Shipping Ltd (‘The Smaro’)English High CourtYes[1999] CLC 301England and WalesCited for the principle that there is no doctrine of issue estoppel or of functus officio in procedural matters.
Flame SA v Glory Wealth Shipping PTE LtdEnglish High CourtYes[2014] QB 1080England and WalesCited to support the principle that a tribunal's change of mind on a procedural matter does not amount to a serious irregularity.
Compton Beauchamp Estates Limited v James William Mills SpenceEnglish High CourtYes[2013] EWHC 1101 (Ch)England and WalesCited as being to similar effect as Flame SA v Glory Wealth Shipping PTE Ltd.
Wing Joo Loong Ginseng (Hong) Singapore Co Pte Ltd v Qinghai Xinyuan Foreign Trade Co Ltd and another and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2009] 2 SLR(R) 814SingaporeCited for the principle that the only general limits on the court’s power to grant declaratory relief are that doing so must not exceed the court’s general jurisdiction or contravene any express statutory provision.
Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd v Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt LtdCourt of AppealYes[2019] 1 SLR 732SingaporeCited for the principle that in situations that are expressly regulated by the Act, the courts should only intervene where so provided in the Act.
L W Infrastructure Pte Ltd v Lim Chin San Contractors Pte Ltd and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2013] 1 SLR 125SingaporeCited for the principle that a court has no residual or concurrent non-statutory power to grant a declaration which purports to nullify an award in any other way or which purports to set it aside on any other ground.
Swissbourgh Diamond Mines (Pty) Ltd and others v Kingdom of LesothoCourt of AppealYes[2019] 1 SLR 263SingaporeCited as binding authority that investment-treaty arbitration is “international commercial arbitration” within the meaning of Art 1(1) of the Model Law.
The United Mexican States v Metalclad CorporationSupreme Court of British ColumbiaYes2001 BSCS 664CanadaCited for the principle that the phrase “relationships of a commercial nature” extends to a relationship of investment.
AAY and others v AAZHigh CourtYes[2011] 1 SLR 1093SingaporeCited as establishing that, unless the parties agree otherwise, a general obligation of confidentiality arises in arbitration under Singapore law.
Myanma Yaung Chi Oo Co Ltd v Win Win Nu and anotherHigh CourtYes[2003] 2 SLR(R) 547SingaporeCited as a case that rested its finding as to the existence of an obligation of confidentiality on an implied term in law, which was rejected in AAY.
John Forster Emmott v Michael Wilson & PartnersCourt of AppealYes[2008] 2 All ER (Comm) 1931England and WalesCited for the exceptions to the general obligation of confidentiality.
K/S A/S Bill Biakh and K/S A/S Bill Biali v Hyundai CorporationEnglish High CourtYes[1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 187England and WalesCited as confirming that the courts do not have the power to grant relief which nullifies a tribunal’s procedural orders.
Ranhill Bersekutu Sdn Bhd v Safege Consulting Engineers & AnorHigh CourtYes[2004] 3 MLJ 554MalaysiaCited as confirming that the courts do not have the power to grant relief which nullifies a tribunal’s procedural orders.
Karaha Bodas Co LLC v Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2006] 1 SLR(R) 112SingaporeCited for the principle that the court’s declaratory jurisdiction is an “exception to the general principle” that a claim must be founded on a reasonable cause of action.
Salijah bte Ab Latef v Mohd Irwan bin Abdullah TeoHigh CourtYes[1995] 3 SLR(R) 233SingaporeCited for the principle that the remedy of a declaration should also provide “relief” in a real sense.
Tok Ee Cheng v Jardin Smith International Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2020] SGHC 111SingaporeCited for the principle that a declaration must serve some useful or practical purpose.
Anwar Siraj and another v Teo Hee Lai Building Construction Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 500SingaporeCited for the principle that a tribunal is not functus officio until its final award is issued and published to the parties.
PT First Media TBK (formerly known as PT Broadband Multimedia TBK) v Astro Nusantara International NV and others and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2014] 1 SLR 372SingaporeCited for the principle that Singapore adopts a de novo standard of review on jurisdictional challenges.
Sanum Investments Ltd v Government of the Lao People’s Democratic RepublicCourt of AppealYes[2016] 5 SLR 536SingaporeCited for the principle that Singapore adopts a de novo standard of review on jurisdictional challenges.
Regina (Elgizouli) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Information Commissioner and others intervening)Supreme CourtYes[2020] 2 WLR 857United KingdomCited for the principle that judicial development of the common law must be based on established principles, building on them incrementally rather than making the more dramatic changes which are the prerogative of the legislature.
Public Prosecutor v Kok Wah KuanFederal CourtYes[2008] 1 MLJ 1MalaysiaCited for the principle that legal adjudication involves a gap-filling function.
BLC and others v BLB and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2014] 4 SLR 79SingaporeCited for the principle that there is no right of recourse to the courts where an arbitrator has simply made an error of law.
Triulzi Cesare SRL v Xinyi Group (Glass) Co LtdHigh CourtYes[2015] 1 SLR 114SingaporeCited for the principle that enforcing an award which rests on an error of law does not even conflict with Singapore’s public policy within the meaning of Art 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Model Law.
NCC International AB v Alliance Concrete Singapore Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 565SingaporeCited for the principle that the court will generally play a relatively more interventionist role in domestic arbitration as compared to international arbitration.
Ahong Construction (S) Pte Ltd v United Boulevard Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[1993] 2 SLR(R) 208SingaporeCited for the definition of a “question of law” within the meaning of s 49(1) of the AA.
Paul Smith Ltd v H & S International Holding IncEnglish High CourtYes[1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 127England and WalesCited for the description of the lex arbitri as “a body of rules which sets a standard external to the arbitration agreement, and the wishes of the parties, for the conduct of the arbitration”.
The Royal Bank of Scotland NV (formerly known as ABN Amro Bank NV) and others v TT International Ltd (nTan Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd and others, other parties) and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2015] 5 SLR 1104SingaporeCited for the rationale of the doctrine of res judicata is to uphold finality in dispute-resolution by ensuring that a litigant is not twice vexed in the same matter.
BTP Tioxide Ltd v Pioneer Shipping, The NemaQueen's Bench DivisionYes[1980] QB 547England and WalesCited for the principles articulated in BTP Tioxide Ltd v Pioneer Shipping, The Nema [1980] QB 547.
Kennedy v Charity Commission (Secretary of State for Justice and others intervening)Supreme CourtYes[2014] 2 WLR 808United KingdomCited for the principle that the common law from a living instrument into, as Lord Toulson put it in a different context, ‘an ossuary’.
Soh Beng Tee & Co Pte Ltd v Fairmount Development Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 86SingaporeCited for the principle of minimal curial intervention.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 1976

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed)Singapore
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial ArbitrationSingapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)Singapore
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Confidentiality
  • Investment-treaty arbitration
  • Cross-disclosure
  • Declaratory relief
  • Abuse of process
  • Collateral attack
  • Minimal curial intervention
  • Lex arbitri
  • Procedural order

15.2 Keywords

  • arbitration
  • confidentiality
  • investment treaty
  • Singapore
  • declaratory relief

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Arbitration95
Investment Treaty Arbitration80
Confidentiality75
International Arbitration70
International Law60
Investment Disputes60
Bilateral Investment Treaty50
Private International Law50
Declaratory relief40
Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards40
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards30
International Arbitration Law30
Documents30

16. Subjects

  • Arbitration
  • Confidentiality
  • Civil Procedure