DJK v DJN: Setting Aside Arbitral Award for Apparent Bias in Loan Agreement Dispute

DJK, DJL, and DJM (Claimants) applied to the General Division of the High Court of Singapore to set aside an arbitral award in favor of DJN (Defendant) in an arbitration administered by the SIAC. The arbitration concerned a loan agreement where the Defendant sought repayment of a loan to the first Claimant, guaranteed by the second and third Claimants. The Claimants alleged apparent bias on the part of the Arbitrator. Chua Lee Ming J dismissed the application, finding no reasonable suspicion of bias.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

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 apparent bias. The court dismissed the application, finding no reasonable suspicion of bias.

1.7 Decision Date

2 December 2024

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
DJK	Claimant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost	Siddartha Bodi of Chua & Partners LLP Sheryl Koh of Chua & Partners LLP
DJL	Claimant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost	Siddartha Bodi of Chua & Partners LLP Sheryl Koh of Chua & Partners LLP
DJM	Claimant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost	Siddartha Bodi of Chua & Partners LLP Sheryl Koh of Chua & Partners LLP
DJN	Defendant	Individual	Application dismissed	Won	Colin Seow of Colin Seow Chambers LLC Violet Huang of Colin Seow Chambers LLC Nichol Yeo of Nine Yards Chambers LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Chua Lee Ming	Judge of the High Court	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Siddartha Bodi	Chua & Partners LLP
Sheryl Koh	Chua & Partners LLP
Colin Seow	Colin Seow Chambers LLC
Violet Huang	Colin Seow Chambers LLC
Nichol Yeo	Nine Yards Chambers LLC

4. Facts

Claimants applied to set aside an arbitral award on the ground of apparent bias.
The arbitration was seated in Singapore and administered by the SIAC.
The Claimants filed a Notice of Challenge to the SIAC Court seeking the removal of the Arbitrator.
The SIAC Court rejected the Notice of Challenge.
The Defendant sought repayment of a loan given to the first Claimant with interest.
The Claimants' defence was that the Defendant had agreed to accept shares as collateral in lieu of cash payment.
The Arbitrator ordered the Claimants to furnish security for the claim and security for costs.

5. Formal Citations

DJK and others v DJN, Originating Application No 274 of 2024, [2024] SGHC 309

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2022-11-10	Defendant submitted a notice of arbitration
2022-12-29	Mr Lomesh Kiran Nidumuri appointed as the Arbitrator
2023-03-05	Defendant applied for early dismissal of Claimants’ defence or security for claim and costs
2023-04-05	Oral hearing held regarding early dismissal/security application
2023-04-07	Defendant applied for reimbursement of unpaid deposits
2023-04-12	Parties submitted supplemental legal authorities
2023-04-17	Defendant applied for production of documents by Claimants
2023-05-29	Arbitrator issued orders on the Early Dismissal/Security Application
2023-05-30	Arbitrator issued orders on the Production Application
2023-05-31	Arbitrator circulated a list of draft issues to the parties
2023-06-07	Claimants requested the Arbitrator to set aside the Security Orders
2023-06-09	Arbitrator rejected the request to set aside Security Orders
2023-06-13	Claimants requested the Arbitrator to withdraw from the Arbitration
2023-06-16	Arbitrator declined the Withdrawal Request
2023-06-21	Claimants filed Notice of Challenge to the SIAC Court
2023-06-30	SIAC Secretariat issued a decision not to suspend the proceedings
2023-07-04	Defendant applied for sanctions against the first Claimant
2023-07-21	Claimants filed their witness statements
2023-07-24	Claimants requested timelines for merits hearing and arguments be fixed after Notice of Challenge was resolved
2023-07-28	Arbitrator stated SIAC had given mandate not to suspend proceedings
2023-08-16	Claimants did not attend hearing
2023-08-17	SIAC Court rejected the Notice of Challenge and directed the Arbitrator to continue
2023-08-31	Defendant concluded arguments
2023-09-15	Defendant filed its Post-Hearing Brief
2023-09-21	Claimants stated they did not intend to participate further
2023-09-21	Arbitrator rejected the Reimbursement Application and the Sanctions Application
2023-09-25	Arbitrator declared the Arbitration closed
2023-12-22	Arbitrator issued the Final Award
2024-03-20	Claimants filed application to set aside the Final Award
2024-11-11	Hearing date
2024-12-03	Judgment date
2024-10-28	Case conference

7. Legal Issues

Apparent Bias
- Outcome: The court found no reasonable suspicion of apparent bias on the part of the Arbitrator.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2018] 2 SLR 1156
  - [2007] 3 SLR(R) 86
  - [2014] 4 SLR 978
Breach of Natural Justice
- Outcome: The court found no breach of natural justice.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2007] 3 SLR(R) 86
Excess of Jurisdiction
- Outcome: The court found that the Arbitrator did not exceed his jurisdiction.
- Category: Jurisdictional

8. Remedies Sought

Setting aside of arbitral award

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Loan Agreement

10. Practice Areas

Arbitration
Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Soh Beng Tee & Co Pte Ltd v Fairmount Development Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2007] 3 SLR(R) 86	Singapore	Cited for the two pillars of natural justice: the rule against bias and the fair hearing rule.
PT Central Investindo v Franciscus Wongso and others and another matter	High Court	Yes	[2014] 4 SLR 978	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an award may be set aside on the ground of apparent bias pursuant to Article 34(2)(a)(iv) of the Model Law.
BOI v BOJ	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2018] 2 SLR 1156	Singapore	Cited for the principles applicable to apparent bias and prejudgment.
Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd v Ang Thian Soo	High Court	Yes	[2006] 4 SLR(R) 156	Singapore	Cited for the proposition that if the likelihood of defence succeeding is very small, the court would require the defendant to provide security.
Overseas-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd v The Timekeeper Singapore Pte Ltd and others	High Court	Yes	[1997] 1 SLR(R) 392	Singapore	Cited in footnote 20, but the Arbitrator erroneously referred to this case instead of Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd v Ang Thian Soo [2006] 4 SLR(R) 156.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (6th Edition, 1 August 2016)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
International Arbitration Act 1994	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Apparent bias
Arbitral award
Security for claim
Security for costs
Natural justice
SIAC Rules
Loan agreement
Notice of Challenge

15.2 Keywords

arbitration
bias
Singapore
loan agreement
SIAC
arbitral award
setting aside

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Arbitration	95
Apparent bias	85
Natural justice	80
Recourse against award	75
Setting aside	70
Commercial Disputes	60
Breach of Contract	50

16. Subjects

Arbitration
Bias
Commercial Law
Loan Agreements