CVV v CWB: Setting Aside Arbitral Award for Breach of Natural Justice

CVV and others appealed against a decision of the Singapore International Commercial Court refusing to set aside an arbitral award in favor of CWB. The dispute arose from advisory agreements AA1 and AA2, where CWB claimed unpaid advisory fees. The Claimants alleged breaches of natural justice by the Tribunal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of the fair hearing rule or failure to give reasons by the Tribunal. The court found that the Tribunal did apply its mind to the essential issues raised by the Claimants.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the republic of singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal to set aside an arbitral award. The court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of natural justice by the arbitral tribunal.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
CVVAppellantOtherAppeal DismissedLost
CVUAppellantOtherAppeal DismissedLost
CVXAppellantOtherAppeal DismissedLost
CVQAppellantCorporationAppeal DismissedLost
CVWAppellantOtherAppeal DismissedLost
CVZAppellantOtherAppeal DismissedLost
CVRAppellantOtherAppeal DismissedLost
CVYAppellantOtherAppeal DismissedLost
CVTAppellantOtherAppeal DismissedLost
CVSAppellantOtherAppeal DismissedLost
CWAAppellantOtherAppeal DismissedLost
CWBRespondentCorporationAppeal DismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Judith PrakashJustice of the Court of AppealNo
Steven ChongJustice of the Court of AppealYes
Robert FrenchInternational JudgeNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
N SreenivasanK&L Gates Straits Law LLC
Tan Kai Ning ClaireK&L Gates Straits Law LLC
Wah Kai Lin KellyK&L Gates Straits Law LLC
Alisa Toh Qian WenAllen & Gledhill LLP
Toh Jia YiAllen & Gledhill LLP
Chan Tai-Hui JasonAllen & Gledhill LLP
Kek Meng Soon KelvinAllen & Gledhill LLP

4. Facts

  1. CVQ engaged CWB as an asset advisor for Fund 1 and Fund 2.
  2. Dispute arose out of CVQ’s failure to pay fees that were due to CWB.
  3. The dispute was referred to arbitration.
  4. The Tribunal dismissed all the Claimants’ claims and allowed CWB’s counterclaims.
  5. Claimants contended that the Award should be set aside in its entirety under s 24(b) of the IAA as it was issued in breach of the rules of natural justice.
  6. The Judge dismissed SIC 2 and SUM 4149.
  7. The Claimants filed the present appeal against the Judge’s decision.

5. Formal Citations

  1. CVV and others v CWB, Civil Appeal No 6 of 2023, [2023] SGCA(I) 9

6. Timeline

DateEvent
CWB approached CVQ with an opportunity to acquire a portfolio of real estate assets
CVQ incorporated Fund 1
Fund 1 issued a private placement memorandum
CVQ and CWB entered into advisory agreement AA1
CWB approached CVQ with another investment opportunity
CVQ, CWB and the Fund 1 Subsidiaries entered into an addendum
CVQ, CWB and the Fund 2 Subsidiary entered into advisory agreement AA2
Growing distrust and tension between the parties
CWB issued a demand to two of the Fund 1 Subsidiaries for payment of advisory fees
CWB served CVQ with a notice of termination of AA2
CVQ served notice of termination of AA1 to CWB
CVQ accepted CWB’s notice of termination of AA2
Fund 1 Subsidiaries served notice of termination of AA1 to CWB
Effective date of termination of AA2
Effective date of termination of AA1
Claimants commenced arbitration proceedings with the Singapore International Arbitration Centre against CWB
The arbitral tribunal issued its final award
A memorandum of corrections to the Award was subsequently issued
The Claimants filed HC/OA 366/2022 in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, to set aside the Award
CWB filed HC/OA 694/2022 in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, for permission to enforce the Award
Permission was granted by an assistant registrar
The Claimants filed HC/SUM 4149/2022 to set aside the order granting permission
The Judge issued his judgment dismissing SIC 2 and SUM 4149
The Claimants filed the present appeal against the Judge’s decision
The Judge rendered his decision on costs
Judgment reserved
Judgment date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Natural Justice
    • Outcome: The court held that there was no breach of the rules of natural justice.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to apply mind to essential issues
      • Breach of fair hearing rule
  2. Setting Aside Arbitral Award
    • Outcome: The court held that there were no grounds for setting aside the award.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Arbitral procedure not in accordance with parties' agreement

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Setting aside of arbitral award

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Arbitration
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Real Estate
  • Finance

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Soh Beng Tee & Co Pte Ltd v Fairmount Development Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 86SingaporeCited for the principles governing the setting aside of an arbitral award for breach of the rules of natural justice.
BZW and another v BZVCourt of AppealYes[2022] 1 SLR 1080SingaporeCited for the two types of breaches of the fair hearing rule.
TMM Division Maritima SA de CV v Pacific Richfield Marine Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2013] 4 SLR 972SingaporeCited regarding the duty of an arbitral tribunal to give reasons for its decision.
Thong Ah Fat v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2012] 1 SLR 676SingaporeCited for the standards applicable to judges in court cases regarding the duty to give reasons.
Westport Insurance Corporation v Gordian Runoff LtdHigh Court of AustraliaYes[2011] HCA 37AustraliaCited regarding the standard of reasons required from an arbitrator.
L W Infrastructure Pte Ltd v Lim Chin San Contractors Pte Ltd and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2013] 1 SLR 125SingaporeCited for the requirement that a party seeking to rely on a breach of the rules of natural justice to set aside an award must demonstrate prejudice.
Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2010] SGHC 80SingaporeCited as an example where the arbitrator was under the erroneous impression that the respondent had ceased to rely on several pleaded points in its counterclaim for misrepresentation.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
International Arbitration Act 1994Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Arbitral award
  • Rules of natural justice
  • Fair hearing rule
  • International Arbitration Act
  • Advisory fees
  • Performance Fee
  • Management Fee
  • Fund 1
  • Fund 2

15.2 Keywords

  • Arbitration
  • Setting aside
  • Natural justice
  • Singapore
  • Commercial dispute

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Arbitration95
Setting Aside Arbitral Award90
Recourse against award90
International Commercial Arbitration80
International Arbitration Act75
Natural justice70
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards60
Contract Law50

16. Subjects

  • Arbitration
  • Contract Law