DFM v DFL: Jurisdictional Waiver in Interim Arbitration Relief Application
In DFM v DFL, the Singapore Court of Appeal addressed whether DFM, the appellant, waived his right to challenge a provisional award obtained by DFL, the respondent, for interim relief in a Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) arbitration. The court, led by Sundaresh Menon CJ, Steven Chong JCA, and Belinda Ang JCA, dismissed DFM's appeal, holding that DFM had submitted to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal for the purpose of the interim relief application by contesting the application on its merits without raising jurisdictional objections. The court found that DFM's conduct demonstrated a waiver of his right to challenge the provisional award under s 31(2)(e) of the International Arbitration Act.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the republic of singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore Court of Appeal holds DFM waived jurisdictional objection in DFL's interim relief application. The appeal was dismissed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Steven Chong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Belinda Ang | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- DFM and DFL entered into a Settlement Agreement on 7 August 2018 to dissolve their business relationship.
- The Settlement Agreement included an arbitration agreement at clause 17, providing for arbitration under the DIFC-LCIA Rules.
- DFM failed to make the second and third payments under the Settlement Agreement, leaving approximately US$90 million outstanding.
- DFL commenced arbitration in the DIAC on 2 April 2022, following a decree that replaced the DIFC in considering disputes.
- DFL sought a freezing order against DFM's assets up to US$90,826,522 in the Interim Relief Application.
- DFM contested the Interim Relief Application on its merits but did not raise jurisdictional objections before the Tribunal.
- The Tribunal issued a Provisional Award allowing the Interim Relief Application on 16 November 2022.
5. Formal Citations
- DFM v DFL, Civil Appeal No 6 of 2024, [2024] SGCA 41
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Settlement Agreement signed | |
| Addendum to Settlement Agreement signed | |
| First payment made under Settlement Agreement | |
| Decree issued by Ruler of Dubai | |
| Decree came into effect | |
| Arbitration commenced in DIAC | |
| Mr Michael Black KC appointed as member of the Tribunal | |
| Ms Sapna Jhangiani KC appointed as member of the Tribunal | |
| Professor Sir Bernard Rix appointed as Chairperson of the Tribunal | |
| Respondent made the Interim Relief Application | |
| Tribunal issued the Provisional Award allowing the Interim Relief Application | |
| Respondent applied for the Leave Order | |
| Leave Order granted | |
| Leave Order served on the Appellant | |
| Appellant commenced HC/SUM 2351/2023 | |
| Case conference held | |
| SUM 2351 heard | |
| SUM 2625 filed | |
| Appellant filed the expert opinion | |
| Parties filed their written submissions in SUM 2625 | |
| Judge dismissed SUM 2625 | |
| Court hearing | |
| Grounds of decision |
7. Legal Issues
- Waiver of Jurisdictional Objection
- Outcome: The court held that the Appellant waived his right to challenge the Provisional Award by contesting the Interim Relief Application on its merits without raising jurisdictional objections.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to raise timely objection
- Submission to jurisdiction by conduct
8. Remedies Sought
- Enforcement of Provisional Award
- Setting aside of Leave Order
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Arbitration
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tomolugen Holdings Ltd and another v Silica Investors Ltd and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 373 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an enforcement court should not determine the issue of jurisdiction before the Tribunal has done so. |
| Tan Ng Kuang Nicky (the duly appointed joint and several liquidators of Sembawang Engineers and Constructors Pte Ltd (in compulsory liquidation)) and others v Metax Eco Solutions Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 1135 | Singapore | Cited to support the confinement of consideration to the Interim Relief Application. |
| CJA v CIZ | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 2 SLR 557 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the inquiry into whether a party has submitted to an arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction is necessarily a fact-sensitive one. |
| Lao Holdings NV v Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic and another matter | Singapore International Commercial Court | Yes | [2021] 5 SLR 228 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a party may by his conduct be found to have waived his right to rely on s 31(2)(e) of the IAA. |
| Triulzi Cesare SRL v Xinyi Group (Glass) Co Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 114 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that whether a party has waived his right to object must be considered in the context of the law of the seat and the arbitral rules which the parties have chosen. |
| Deutsche Telekom AG v The Republic of India | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2024] 3 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that whether a party has waived his right to object must be considered in the context of the law of the seat and the arbitral rules which the parties have chosen. |
| Giant Light Metal Technology (Kunshan) Co Ltd v Aksa Far East Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 545 | Singapore | Cited for the reason for adopting a contextual approach. |
| Akai Pty Ltd v People’s Insurance Co Ltd | High Court of England and Wales | Yes | [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 90 | England and Wales | Cited for the reason for adopting a contextual approach. |
| China Machine New Energy Corp v Jaguar Energy Guatemala LLC and another | Singapore | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 695 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an aggrieved party cannot complain after the fact if it had conducted itself as if it had been content to proceed with the arbitration. |
| Opals on Ice Lingerie v Bodylines Inc | United States District Court for the Southern District of New York | Yes | 320 F.3d 362 | United States | Cited for the principle that if a party participates in arbitration proceedings without making a timely objection, that party may be found to have waived its right to object to the arbitration. |
| Halley Optical Corp v Jagar Int’l Marketing Corp | United States District Court for the Southern District of New York | Yes | 752 F.Supp 638 | United States | Cited for the principle that to conclude otherwise would allow a party to participate in an arbitration, with the assurance that if it loses it may later challenge whether it had ever agreed to arbitrate. |
| Carona Holdings Pte Ltd and others v Go Go Delicacy Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 460 | Singapore | Cited for the court’s assessment of whether a party has waived its right to contest the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal is conducted in a “practical and commonsensical way”. |
| A v B | High Court of England and Wales | Yes | [2017] EWHC 3417 (Comm) | England and Wales | Cited for what is meant by taking the “first step” in the proceedings. |
| Bi Xiaoqiong (in her personal capacity and as trustee of the Xiao Qiong Bi Trust and the Alisa Wu Irrevocable Trust) v China Medical Technologies, Inc (in liquidation) and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 595 | Singapore | Cited regarding the standard to which an applicant must establish the relevant facts in an interim relief application. |
| RGA Holdings International Inc v Loh Choon Phing Robin and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 997 | Singapore | Cited regarding the standard to which an applicant must establish the relevant facts in an interim relief application. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| International Arbitration Act 1994 | Singapore |
| Arbitration Act 1996 (c 23) (UK) | United Kingdom |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Interim Relief Application
- Provisional Award
- Jurisdictional Objection
- Waiver
- Settlement Agreement
- DIAC Rules
- DIFC-LCIA Rules
- Kompetenz-Kompetenz
15.2 Keywords
- arbitration
- jurisdiction
- waiver
- interim relief
- singapore
- court of appeal
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law