DKT v DKU: Setting Aside Arbitral Award for Breach of Natural Justice

In DKT v DKU, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore heard an application by DKT to set aside an arbitral award made in favor of DKU, alleging a breach of natural justice by the arbitral tribunal. The court, presided over by Judicial Commissioner Kristy Tan, dismissed the application, finding no breach of the fair hearing rule. The underlying dispute arose from breaches of contract related to crack repair works.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Arbitration

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Application to set aside an arbitral award for breach of natural justice is dismissed. The court found no breach of the fair hearing rule.

1.7 Decision Date

25 November 2024

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
DKT	Applicant	Other	Application dismissed	Lost	Tan Tian Luh of Chancery Law Corporation Tan Xian Ying of Chancery Law Corporation Yap Xuan Wei of Chancery Law Corporation
DKU	Respondent	Other	Costs awarded to DKU	Won	Abraham Vergis of Providence Law Asia LLC Zhuo Jiaxiang of Providence Law Asia LLC Ngo Wei Shing of Providence Law Asia LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Kristy Tan	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Tan Tian Luh	Chancery Law Corporation
Tan Xian Ying	Chancery Law Corporation
Yap Xuan Wei	Chancery Law Corporation
Abraham Vergis	Providence Law Asia LLC
Zhuo Jiaxiang	Providence Law Asia LLC
Ngo Wei Shing	Providence Law Asia LLC

4. Facts

DKT was in the business of property and facilities management.
DKU engaged DKT under a 2012 Term Contract and a 2014 Term Contract to provide maintenance services.
The Term Contracts required DKT to carry out inspections of buildings and to repair any cracks found.
DKU commenced arbitral proceedings against DKT for breaches of the Term Contracts.
DKU claimed that certain crack repair works were not completed and/or performed in accordance with the Term Contracts.
DKU sought damages, including recovery of payments made to DKT for the crack repair works.
DKT's defence was that it had satisfactorily performed the crack repair works.

5. Formal Citations

DKT v DKU, Originating Application No 844 of 2024, [2024] SGHC 300

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2012-01-01	2012 Term Contract signed
2014-01-01	2014 Term Contract signed
2018-01-01	Arbitral proceedings commenced
2022-06-17	Mr. K's report dated
2023-02-17	Closing Submissions exchanged
2023-04-28	Reply Submissions exchanged; Liu Shu Ming decision issued
2023-05-16	DKU sought leave to respond to DKT's reliance on Liu
2023-05-18	Tribunal granted DKU leave to file reply submissions addressing Liu
2023-06-06	DKU filed Supplementary Submissions
2023-06-12	DKT sought leave to respond to DKU's Supplementary Submissions
2023-06-13	Tribunal granted DKT leave to respond to DKU's Supplementary Submissions
2023-07-03	DKT filed Supplementary Submissions
2024-05-30	Award issued
2024-08-23	DKT's 1st Affidavit filed
2024-08-23	DKT's 2nd Affidavit filed
2024-09-23	DKU's Affidavit filed
2024-10-30	Hearing of OA 844
2024-11-25	Costs submissions filed
2024-11-26	Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

Breach of Natural Justice
- Outcome: The court found no breach of natural justice.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Disregarding defences
  - Denial of opportunity to present case
  - Failure to apply mind to evidence
Entitlement to Reliance Damages
- Outcome: The Tribunal found that U was entitled to reliance damages because it would have been extremely difficult for U to prove expectation damages and the Term Contracts were 'not for profit' contracts.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Satisfaction of Liu Requirements
  - Contracts not for profit
  - Difficulty in proving expectation damages

8. Remedies Sought

Setting aside of arbitral award
Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

Arbitration
Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Construction
Property Management

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Liu Shu Ming and another v Koh Chew Chee and another matter	Appellate Division of the High Court	Yes	[2023] 1 SLR 1477	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a plaintiff does not have an unfettered option to claim reliance damages and the conditions under which reliance damages are available.
Soh Beng Tee & Co Pte Ltd v Fairmount Development Pte Ltd	Unknown	Yes	[2007] 3 SLR(R) 86	Singapore	Cited for the test to set aside an arbitral award on the ground of breach of natural justice.
BLC and others v BLB and another	Unknown	Yes	[2014] 4 SLR 79	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an arbitral award should be read generously.
Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2010] SGHC 80	Singapore	Cited regarding failure to consider certain representations pleaded by a party.
AKN and another v ALC and others and other appeals	Unknown	Yes	[2015] 3 SLR 488	Singapore	Cited regarding the unique facts in Front Row and the arbitrator's failure to consider certain representations.
PT Prima International Development v Kempinski Hotels SA and other appeals	Unknown	Yes	[2012] 4 SLR 98	Singapore	Cited for the principle that issues arising from a change in law during arbitration fall within the scope of the parties' submission to arbitration.
CKH v CKG and another matter	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2022] 2 SLR 1	Singapore	Cited for the principle that matters can arise which are or become within the scope of the issues submitted for arbitral decision, even though they are not pleaded.
CBX and another v CBZ and others	Unknown	Yes	[2022] 1 SLR 47	Singapore	Cited regarding conduct of the parties widening the scope of the issues falling for determination.
Fisher, Stephen J v Sunho Construction Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2018] SGHC 76	Singapore	Cited regarding the interpretation of language used in an arbitral award.
AYW v AYX	Unknown	Yes	[2016] 1 SLR 1183	Singapore	Cited regarding the interpretation of the phrase 'not a shred of evidence'.
DHZ v DHY and another matter	High Court	Yes	[2024] SGHC 236	Singapore	Cited regarding the interpretation of the phrase 'not a shred of evidence'.
Telemedia Pacific Group Ltd v Credit Agricole (Suisse) SA (Yeh Mao-Yuan, third party)	Unknown	Yes	[2015] 4 SLR 1019	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court will tend to exercise its discretion to award costs in a manner that upholds the parties’ contractual bargain unless it would be manifestly unjust to do so.
NSL Oilchem Waste Management Pte Ltd v Prosper Marine Pte Ltd and other suits	High Court	Yes	[2020] SGHC 204	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court will tend to exercise its discretion to award costs in a manner that upholds the parties’ contractual bargain unless it would be manifestly unjust to do so.
L W Infrastructure Pte Ltd v Lim Chin San Contractors Pte Ltd and another appeal	Unknown	Yes	[2013] 1 SLR 125	Singapore	Cited regarding the requirement to show that the material could reasonably have made a difference in the arbitrator's deliberations.
CEF and another v CEH	Unknown	Yes	[2022] 2 SLR 918	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the 'no evidence rule' has not been adopted as part of Singapore law.
Phoenixfin Pte Ltd and others v Convexity Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2022] 2 SLR 23	Singapore	Cited regarding the arbitral tribunal unilaterally re-introducing an issue over the respondent’s objections.
BZW and another v BZV	Unknown	Yes	[2022] 1 SLR 1080	Singapore	Cited regarding the fair hearing rule and the nexus to arguments.
TMM Division Maritima SA de CV v Pacific Richfield Marine Pte Ltd	Unknown	Yes	[2013] 4 SLR 972	Singapore	Cited regarding an issue need not be addressed expressly in an arbitral award; it may be implicitly resolved without navigating through all the arguments and evidence on the issue

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Arbitration Act 2001	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Arbitral award
Breach of natural justice
Term Contracts
Crack repair works
Reliance damages
Expectation damages
Schedule of Rates
Acquiescence
Waiver
Estoppel
Variation

15.2 Keywords

arbitration
setting aside
breach of natural justice
contract
Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Recourse against award	95
Arbitration	90
Setting aside	90
Natural justice	85
Breach of Contract	70
Reliance Damages	65
Contractual terms	60
Evidence Law	50
Commercial Disputes	40
Construction	30

16. Subjects

Arbitration
Contract Law
Civil Procedure