Tilani v Koedijk: Arbitration Confidentiality & Court's Inherent Powers

The Singapore Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Karan Chandur Tilani's application (SUM 28) seeking a sealing order to protect the confidentiality of arbitration proceedings in CA/CA 22/2024 against Mr. Maarten Hein Bernard Koedijk and Gevali Pte Ltd. The court, comprising Sundaresh Menon CJ, Steven Chong JCA, and Belinda Ang Saw Ean JCA, found that the confidentiality had been compromised by the appellant's prior disclosure of the arbitral award in separate statutory demand proceedings. The court determined that the principle of open justice outweighed the need for confidentiality in this case.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal 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

Singapore Court of Appeal dismissed an application for a sealing order to protect arbitration confidentiality, finding it had been compromised by prior disclosure.

1.7 Decision Date

29 October 2024

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Karan Chandur Tilani	Appellant	Individual	Application Dismissed	Lost	Chang Man Phing Jenny of WongPartnership LLP Goh Sher Hwyn Rebecca of WongPartnership LLP Ho Pei Shien Melanie of WongPartnership LLP
Maarten Hein Bernard Koedijk	Respondent	Individual	Successful Resistance of Application	Won	Devathas Satianathan of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Thawdar Soe Moe @ The Sandi Tun of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Louis Lau Yi Hang of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Gevali Pte Ltd	Respondent	Corporation	Successful Resistance of Application	Won	Devathas Satianathan of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Thawdar Soe Moe @ The Sandi Tun of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Louis Lau Yi Hang of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Sundaresh Menon	Chief Justice	No
Steven Chong	Justice of the Court of Appeal	No
Belinda Ang Saw Ean	Justice of the Court of Appeal	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Chang Man Phing Jenny	WongPartnership LLP
Goh Sher Hwyn Rebecca	WongPartnership LLP
Ho Pei Shien Melanie	WongPartnership LLP
Devathas Satianathan	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Thawdar Soe Moe @ The Sandi Tun	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Louis Lau Yi Hang	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP

4. Facts

Appellant commenced arbitration against respondents for non-payment under two contracts.
Respondents counterclaimed against the appellant for fraudulent misrepresentation.
Arbitrator issued a Final Award dismissing the appellant’s claim and allowing the respondents’ counterclaim.
Appellant applied to set aside the Final Award, which was dismissed.
Appellant disclosed a full copy of the Final Award in Statutory Demand Proceedings.
Appellant did not make a formal application to seal the case file in the Statutory Demand Proceedings.
SUM 28 was filed more than three months after the notice of appeal was filed.

5. Formal Citations

Karan Chandur TilanivMaarten Hein Bernard Koedijk and another, Civil Appeal No 22 of 2024, [2024] SGCA 46

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2023-04-20	Arbitrator issued the Final Award dismissing the appellant’s claim and allowing the respondents’ counterclaim.
2023-01-01	Appellant commenced arbitration proceedings against the respondents for non-payment under two contracts.
2024-03-14	OA 591 was dismissed by the Judge with costs fixed at $25,000.
2024-04-01	Appellant filed his appeal CA 22.
2024-06-06	Appellant filed HC/OSB 54/2024 to set aside the Statutory Demand.
2024-07-05	Appellant appealed against the decision in OSB 54 by way of HC/RA 117/2024.
2024-07-09	WongPartnership LLP engaged to represent the appellant in RA 117.
2024-07-12	SUM 28 was filed.
2024-08-01	Appellant indicated he wished to amend the prayers in SUM 28.
2024-08-05	Appellant applied for amendment by way of letter.
2024-08-05	RA 117 was dismissed.
2024-08-30	SUM 28 was dismissed.
2024-09-02	Date of the hearing.
2024-10-30	Date of the decision.

7. Legal Issues

Confidentiality of Arbitration Proceedings
- Outcome: The court held that the confidentiality of the arbitration had been compromised due to the appellant's disclosure of the Final Award in the Statutory Demand Proceedings.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Disclosure of arbitral award in non-arbitration proceedings
  - Loss of confidentiality due to public accessibility of court records
- Related Cases:
  - [2023] 2 SLR 77
Inherent Powers of the Court
- Outcome: The court held that it could not exercise its inherent powers to protect confidentiality because the confidentiality of the arbitration was no longer intact.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
  - Court's power to regulate its own processes
  - Balancing open justice with the protection of confidentiality
- Related Cases:
  - [2022] 5 SLR 896
  - [2016] 5 SLR 755
Open Justice
- Outcome: The court emphasized the importance of open justice and found that it outweighed the need for confidentiality in this case.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Public access to court records
  - Transparency in judicial proceedings
- Related Cases:
  - [2013] 4 SLR 529
  - [2022] 3 SLR 1211

8. Remedies Sought

Sealing order for court files
Non-publication of information relating to the appeal

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract
Fraudulent Misrepresentation

10. Practice Areas

Arbitration
Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
DDI v DDJ and another	High Court	Yes	[2024] SGHC 68	Singapore	Cited as the decision of the General Division of the High Court in HC/OA 591/2023, wherein the judge refused the appellant’s application to set aside an arbitral award.
The Republic of India v Deutsche Telekom AG	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2023] 2 SLR 77	Singapore	Cited for the principles relating to the protection of the privacy of arbitration enforcement proceedings.
Re Tay Quan Li Leon	High Court	Yes	[2022] 5 SLR 896	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a sealing order may be granted pursuant to its inherent powers to regulate its own processes and make appropriate orders to achieve the ends of justice.
BBW v BBX and others	High Court	Yes	[2016] 5 SLR 755	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a sealing order may be granted pursuant to its inherent powers to regulate its own processes and make appropriate orders to achieve the ends of justice.
Jethanand Harkishindas Bhojwani v Lakshmi Prataprai Bhojwani (alias Mrs Lakshmi Jethanand Bhojwani) and others	High Court	Yes	[2022] 3 SLR 1211	Singapore	Cited for the principle that when “a document has become a part of the record in any court proceedings, the information in the document enters into the public domain”.
Tan Chi Min v The Royal Bank of Scotland plc	High Court	Yes	[2013] 4 SLR 529	Singapore	Cited for the principle of open justice and that the threshold for a request for inspection of a case file is a low one.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 34 r 3(1)(h) of the Rules of Court 2021
O 26 rr 3(8) and 3(10) of the ROC 2021

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Arbitration Act 2001	Singapore
s 56 of the Arbitration Act 2001	Singapore
s 57 of the Arbitration Act 2001	Singapore
International Arbitration Act 1994	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Arbitration
Confidentiality
Sealing order
Open justice
Statutory Demand Proceedings
Final Award
Inherent powers of the court

15.2 Keywords

arbitration
confidentiality
sealing order
open justice
court of appeal
singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Confidentiality	85
Arbitration	75
Privacy	70
Civil Practice	60
Inherent powers	55
Jurisdiction	50
Fraud and Deceit	40

16. Subjects

Arbitration
Civil Procedure
Confidentiality
Privacy