CYW v CYX: Setting Aside Arbitration Award - Breach of Natural Justice
In CYW v CYX, the Singapore International Commercial Court addressed CYW's application to set aside an arbitration award. The dispute arose from commercial arrangements related to a cattle purchase program. CYW claimed a breach of natural justice due to the tribunal's orders regarding expert evidence and document translations. The court, presided over by Thomas Bathurst IJ, dismissed the application, finding no breach of natural justice and that the tribunal's decisions were within a reasonable range. The court ordered CYW to pay CYX's costs.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Singapore International Commercial Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court dismisses CYW's application to set aside an arbitration award, finding no breach of natural justice in the proceedings. Key issue: fairness of tribunal's orders.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CYW | Applicant | Corporation | Application dismissed | Lost | Suhaimi bin Lazim, Mohamed Hashim H Sirajudeen, Abdul Rohim bin Sarip |
| CYX | Respondent | Corporation | Application dismissed | Won | Herman Jeremiah, Aw Sze Min, Lee Qiu Li, Tan Yi Xi Joie |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Thomas Bathurst | International Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Suhaimi bin Lazim | Mirandah Law LLP |
| Mohamed Hashim H Sirajudeen | Mirandah Law LLP |
| Abdul Rohim bin Sarip | A. Rohim Noor Lila LLP |
| Herman Jeremiah | Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Aw Sze Min | Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Lee Qiu Li | Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Tan Yi Xi Joie | Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
4. Facts
- CYW sought to set aside an arbitration award based on alleged breaches of natural justice.
- The arbitration arose from a dispute over commercial arrangements related to cattle purchases.
- CYW claimed the tribunal's orders regarding expert evidence and document translations were unreasonable.
- CYW argued that the tribunal's refusal to grant extensions prejudiced its ability to present its case.
- The tribunal had granted multiple extensions to CYW but ultimately imposed deadlines for submissions.
- CYW withdrew from the arbitration proceedings in protest of the tribunal's orders.
- The tribunal proceeded with the arbitration and dismissed CYW's claim.
5. Formal Citations
- CYW v CYX, Originating Application No 3 of 2022, [2023] SGHC(I) 10
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Sales and Management Service Agreement signed. | |
| Company B entered into a bill purchase facility with CYX. | |
| Security Deed executed. | |
| Company B issued 21 invoices and bills of exchange. | |
| Mr. C and Mr. D removed from their positions as directors of CYW. | |
| Receivers and managers of the livestock appointed. | |
| Company B issued a notice of arbitration against CYW and Company A. | |
| CYW filed a notice of arbitration with the SIAC. | |
| CYX filed a response to the Notice of Arbitration. | |
| Preliminary meeting convened by the Tribunal. | |
| Tribunal issued Procedural Order No 1. | |
| Hearing on the merits set down for five days commencing on 6 September 2021. | |
| CYW submitted its Statement of Claim. | |
| CYX filed its Defence and Counterclaim. | |
| Tribunal granted an extension of time to file the RDCC to 17 May 2021. | |
| Tribunal granted a further extension to CYW to file its RDCC until 18 June 2021. | |
| Tribunal granted an extension of time for delivery of the RDCC by 14 days. | |
| RDCC filed. | |
| Tribunal rendered its decision on the suspension application in PO No 2. | |
| Tribunal wrote to the parties rejecting CYW’s application to set aside the orders in PO No 2. | |
| Tribunal declined to allow CYW to withdraw its claims. | |
| Hearing commenced. | |
| Final Award dated, Award No 67 of 2022 made. | |
| HC/OA 491/2022 filed. | |
| Case Management Conference held. | |
| Hearing before the court. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Natural Justice
- Outcome: The court found no breach of natural justice, holding that the tribunal's decisions were within a reasonable range.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Denial of reasonable opportunity to be heard
- Infringement of right to adduce expert evidence
- Exclusion of documents
- Setting Aside Arbitration Award
- Outcome: The court dismissed the application to set aside the arbitration award.
- Category: Procedural
- Causal Nexus between Breach and Award
- Outcome: The court found it unnecessary to decide on the causal nexus, as it concluded there was no breach of natural justice.
- Category: Procedural
- Prejudice Suffered Due to Breach
- Outcome: The court found it unnecessary to decide on the prejudice suffered, as it concluded there was no breach of natural justice.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting Aside of Arbitration Award
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Natural Justice
10. Practice Areas
- Arbitration
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| China Machine New Energy Corp v Jaguar Energy Guatemala LLC and another | High Court | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 695 | Singapore | Cited for the principles applicable to setting aside an arbitral award based on a breach of natural justice and the court's role in balancing due process rights with the tribunal's discretion. |
| CPU and others v CPX | High Court | Yes | [2022] 4 SLR 314 | Singapore | Cited for summarizing the principles applicable to an application under s 24(b) of the IAA, including the requirements for establishing a breach of natural justice and the need for a causal nexus between the breach and the award. |
| CRW Joint Operation v PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero) TBK | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 305 | Singapore | Cited for the requirement that, to set aside an arbitral award under s 24(b) of the IAA, the court must be satisfied that the arbitral tribunal breached a rule of natural justice and that the breach caused actual or real prejudice to the party challenging the award. |
| L W Infrastructure Pte Ltd v Lim Chin San Contractors Pte Ltd and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 125 | Singapore | Cited for explaining the requirement of actual or real prejudice in setting aside an arbitral award under s 24(b) of the IAA, emphasizing that the breach must have denied the tribunal the benefit of arguments or evidence that had a real chance of making a difference to its decision. |
| Soh Beng Tee & Co Pte Ltd v Fairmount Development Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 86 | Singapore | Cited for the principles regarding the threshold for finding a breach of natural justice and the need to establish prejudice in setting aside an arbitral award. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (6th Ed, 1 August 2016) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| International Arbitration Act 1994 | Singapore |
| UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration | Not Applicable |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Arbitration Award
- Breach of Natural Justice
- Setting Aside
- Procedural Order
- Expert Evidence
- Document Translation
- Reasonable Opportunity
- Prejudice
- Tribunal Discretion
- Extension of Time
15.2 Keywords
- arbitration
- natural justice
- setting aside
- Singapore
- international commercial court
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- Civil Procedure
- International Law
17. Areas of Law
- Arbitration Law
- International Arbitration
- Civil Procedure