DDI v DDJ: Setting Aside Arbitral Award for Excess of Jurisdiction, Bias, and Breach of Fair Hearing Rule
In DDI v DDJ, the High Court of Singapore heard an application by DDI to set aside an arbitral award. The underlying arbitration concerned a dispute over a sale and purchase agreement of shares in a company owning a piece of jewellery. DDI alleged that the arbitrator exceeded their jurisdiction, demonstrated bias, and breached the fair hearing rule. The court, presided over by Justice Chua Lee Ming, dismissed DDI's application, finding no grounds to set aside the arbitral award.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 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 concerning a share purchase agreement, alleging excess of jurisdiction, bias, and breach of the fair hearing rule. The court dismissed the application.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chua Lee Ming | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- DDI applied to set aside an arbitral award under s 48 of the Arbitration Act 2001.
- The dispute concerned the sale and purchase of shares in a company owning a piece of jewellery.
- DDI alleged excess of jurisdiction, bias, and breach of the fair hearing rule.
- The arbitrator determined all agreed issues in favor of the respondents.
- The arbitrator declared the SPA null and void.
- The arbitrator ordered DDI to refund S$648,601 and pay damages of S$2,380,993.23.
- The respondents counterclaimed for the return of coins, damages, and a declaration that the SPA was void.
5. Formal Citations
- DDI v DDJ and another, Originating Application 591 of 2023, [2024] SGHC 68
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Second respondent entered into a fractional ownership and transfer agreement with the applicant. | |
| Two FOAs were signed. | |
| Two FOAs were signed. | |
| First respondent provided the applicant with two cryptocurrency storage devices. | |
| Applicant signed a storage services agreement with Company DG. | |
| Applicant and the respondents executed a sale and purchase agreement. | |
| Applicant and the first respondents signed an option agreement. | |
| Completion of the SPA took place. | |
| Applicant exercised the Option and signed an Option Notice. | |
| Applicant filed his Notice of Arbitration. | |
| Respondents filed their Response to Notice of Arbitration. | |
| The Court of Arbitration of SIAC appointed the applicant’s nominee as the sole arbitrator. | |
| Applicant filed his Statement of Claim. | |
| Respondents filed their Defence and Counterclaim. | |
| Applicant filed his Reply and Defence to the Respondents’ Defence and Counterclaim. | |
| The Arbitrator issued the Final Award. | |
| Judgment date. | |
| Judgment date. |
7. Legal Issues
- Excess of Jurisdiction
- Outcome: The court found that the arbitrator did not exceed their jurisdiction.
- Category: Procedural
- Bias
- Outcome: The court found no evidence of bias on the part of the arbitrator.
- Category: Procedural
- Breach of Fair Hearing Rule
- Outcome: The court found no breach of the fair hearing rule.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting Aside of Arbitral Award
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
10. Practice Areas
- Arbitration
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Jewellery
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CJA v CIZ | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 2 SLR 557 | Singapore | Cited for the two-stage enquiry in assessing whether an arbitral award should be set aside for an excess of jurisdiction. |
| Soh Beng Tee & Co Pte Ltd v Fairmount Development Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 86 | Singapore | Cited for the principles relating to breach of natural justice in arbitration. |
| BZW and another v BZV | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 1 SLR 1080 | Singapore | Cited for the principles relating to breach of the fair hearing rule. |
| BOI v BOJ | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 1156 | Singapore | Cited for the principles in relation to the doctrine of apparent bias. |
| L W Infrastructure Pte Ltd v Lim Chin San Contractors Pte Ltd and another appeal | Unknown | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 125 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a breach of the rules of natural justice must have caused prejudice to set aside an award. |
| CRW Joint Operation v PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero) TBK | Unknown | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 305 | Singapore | Cited for the test under s 24(b) of the IAA. |
| PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SA | Unknown | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 597 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the arbitral award involved a “new difference … outside the scope of the submission to arbitration and accordingly would have been irrelevant to the issues requiring determination” |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Arbitration Act 2001 | Singapore |
| International Arbitration Act 1994 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Arbitral Award
- Sale and Purchase Agreement
- Shares
- Jewellery
- Gemstone
- Cryptocurrency
- Trezor Keys
- Seed Phrases
- Safe Agreement
- Fractional Ownership Agreement
- Option Agreement
15.2 Keywords
- Arbitration
- Setting Aside
- Jurisdiction
- Bias
- Fair Hearing
- Contract
- Jewellery
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Setting Aside Arbitral Award | 95 |
| Arbitration | 90 |
| Misrepresentation | 70 |
| Commercial Disputes | 60 |
| Contract Law | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure