CZT v CZU: Production of Arbitral Tribunal Deliberation Records in Setting Aside Application
In CZT v CZU, the Singapore International Commercial Court dismissed applications by CZT to compel the production of records of deliberations from the arbitral tribunal in an arbitration proceeding. CZT sought to set aside an arbitral award issued against it, alleging breaches of natural justice, exceeding the scope of submission to arbitration, procedural irregularities, and conflict with public policy. The court, comprising Chua Lee Ming J, Dominique Hascher IJ, and Sir Jeremy Cooke IJ, held that the confidentiality of arbitral deliberations is paramount and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate compelling reasons to override this confidentiality. The court dismissed Summonses Nos 788, 789, and 790 of 2023, ordering CZT to proceed with its setting aside application based on the existing arbitration record.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Singapore International Commercial Court1.2 Outcome
Summonses dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court dismissed application to produce arbitral tribunal's deliberation records. The court emphasized the confidentiality of arbitral deliberations.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chua Lee Ming | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
| Dominique Hascher | International Judge | No |
| Jeremy Cooke | International Judge | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The defendant commenced arbitration proceedings against the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff applied to set aside the arbitral award.
- The plaintiff sought production of the records of deliberations from the arbitral tribunal.
- The minority arbitrator issued a dissenting opinion containing serious allegations against the majority.
- The ICC Court scrutinized the draft award.
- The plaintiff alleged the majority reached conclusions based on facts not argued by the parties.
- The plaintiff alleged the majority attempted to conceal the true reasons behind the award.
5. Formal Citations
- CZT v CZU, Originating Summons No 1 of 2023 (Summonses Nos 788, 789 and 790 of 2023), [2023] SGHC(I) 11
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Defendant commenced arbitration proceedings against the plaintiff. | |
| Majority submitted a draft award to the ICC Court. | |
| ICC Court scrutinised the draft award. | |
| ICC Court approved the revised draft award. | |
| ICC sent the Final Award to the parties. | |
| Minority sent a copy of his dissenting opinion to the parties’ lawyers. | |
| Plaintiff filed an originating summons in the General Division of the High Court to set aside the Final Award. | |
| Plaintiff filed Summonses Nos 788 of 2023, 789 of 2023 and 790 of 2023 seeking production of the records of deliberations. | |
| Proceedings were transferred to the Singapore International Commercial Court. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Confidentiality of Arbitral Deliberations
- Outcome: The court held that the confidentiality of arbitral deliberations is paramount and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate compelling reasons to override this confidentiality.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2009] 1 SLR(R) 945
- Duke of Buccleuch v The Metropolitan Board of Works (1872) LR 5 HL 418
- P v Q [2017] EWHC 148
- Production of Documents
- Outcome: The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for production of documents, finding that the plaintiff had not shown that its case fell within the exceptions to the protection of the confidentiality of deliberations.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- Arovin Ltd and another v Hadiran Sridjaja [2019] 5 SLR 1
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting Aside of Arbitral Award
- Production of Documents
9. Cause of Actions
- Setting Aside of Arbitral Award
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Arbitration
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| International Coal Pte Ltd v Kristle Trading Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2009] 1 SLR(R) 945 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that confidentiality of arbitration proceedings is an implied obligation of law. |
| Duke of Buccleuch v The Metropolitan Board of Works | House of Lords | Yes | Duke of Buccleuch v The Metropolitan Board of Works (1872) LR 5 HL 418 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that an arbitrator may be questioned as to what took place before him, but not as to how he arrived at his decision. |
| P v Q | High Court | Yes | P v Q [2017] EWHC 148 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that arbitrators will only be required to give disclosure of documents in the very rarest of cases. |
| Noble China Inc v Lei | Ontario Court of Appeal | Yes | Noble China Inc v Lei 42 OR (3d) 69 | Canada | Cited for the principle that freedom from outside scrutiny enables arbitrators to reflect on the evidence without restriction. |
| Nathan v MJK Constructions | Supreme Court of Victoria | Yes | Nathan v MJK Constructions [1986] VR 75 | Australia | Cited for the principle that an arbitrator may give evidence as to what took place before him, but not as to his reason for making a particular decision. |
| The Czech Republic v CME Czech Republic B.V. | Svea Court of Appeal | Yes | The Czech Republic v CME Czech Republic B.V. (Judgment of the Svea Court of Appeal) of 15 May 2003) (2003) 15(3) WTAM 171 | Sweden | Cited by the plaintiff, but distinguished by the court because under the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure, arbitrators may be called as witnesses in challenge proceedings. |
| Petition of Fertilizantes Fosfatados Mexicanos, S.A. | US Southern District Court of New York | Yes | Petition of Fertilizantes Fosfatados Mexicanos, S.A. 751 F.Supp. 467 (1990) | United States | Cited by the plaintiff, but the court found it to be of limited assistance because the judgment does not deal with the arguments or considerations relating to the confidentiality of deliberations. |
| Dobish v Rain Hail, LLC | US District Court of Nebraska | Yes | Dobish v Rain Hail, LLC 2011 WL 3300073 | United States | Cited by the plaintiff, but the court found it to be consistent with the proposition that arbitrators may be required to give evidence as to matters that took place before them, but not as to their reasons for their decisions. |
| Arovin Ltd and another v Hadiran Sridjaja | Court of Appeal | Yes | Arovin Ltd and another v Hadiran Sridjaja [2019] 5 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that requests for production must be properly focused on the specific documents or a narrow category of documents. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) |
| Singapore International Commercial Court Rules 2021 |
| Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| International Arbitration Act 1994 (2020 Rev Ed) (IAA) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Arbitration
- Confidentiality
- Deliberations
- Production of Documents
- Setting Aside
- Arbitral Tribunal
- Dissenting Opinion
- ICC Rules
- Impartiality
- Fair Hearing
15.2 Keywords
- arbitration
- confidentiality
- deliberations
- production of documents
- setting aside
- SICC
- Singapore International Commercial Court
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- Civil Procedure