DJO v DJP: Setting Aside Arbitration Award for Breach of Natural Justice

In DJO v DJP and others, the Singapore International Commercial Court addressed an application by DJO to set aside an arbitration award. DJO sought to set aside the award pursuant to s 24(b) of the International Arbitration Act 1994 (2020 Rev Ed) and/or various sections of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. The court found that the arbitral tribunal breached the rules of natural justice by improperly relying on prior parallel arbitrations when making its award. The court granted the application and set aside the arbitration award.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Singapore International Commercial Court

1.2 Outcome

Application granted; the final award dated 24 November 2023 issued by the arbitral tribunal in ICC Arbitration Case No 26733/HTG is set aside in its entirety.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court sets aside an arbitration award due to the tribunal's breach of natural justice, citing extensive copying from parallel arbitrations.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
DJOClaimantCorporationApplication GrantedWon
DJPDefendantCorporationApplication DismissedLost
DJQDefendantCorporationApplication DismissedLost
DJRDefendantCorporationApplication DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Simon ThorleyInternational JudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Tham LijingDuxton Hill Chambers (Singapore Group Practice)
Chan Leng SunDuxton Hill Chambers (Singapore Group Practice)
Nathaniel LaiDuxton Hill Chambers (Singapore Group Practice)
Ashish ChughWong & Leow LLC
Nicholas TanWong & Leow LLC
Darien TheWong & Leow LLC

4. Facts

  1. DJO sought to set aside an arbitration award.
  2. The arbitral tribunal was alleged to have copied large portions of the award from awards in parallel arbitrations.
  3. The parallel arbitrations involved similar issues and implicated similar parties.
  4. Judge C was the presiding arbitrator in all three arbitrations.
  5. The court found that the tribunal breached the rules of natural justice.
  6. The tribunal relied on submissions and authorities from the parallel arbitrations.
  7. The tribunal failed to properly consider the unique issues in the present arbitration.

5. Formal Citations

  1. DJO v DJP and others, Originating Application No 8 of 2024, [2024] SGHC(I) 24

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Singapore selected as the seat of arbitration.
Parties entered into the CPT-13 Contract.
Indian Ministry of Labour issued Notification No. S.O.188(E) increasing minimum wages.
Consortium X gave notice to DJO under cl 13.7 seeking adjustment for additional labour costs.
DJO commenced the Arbitration.
Three-member arbitral tribunal constituted.
CP-301 Award was issued.
CP-302 Award was handed down.
Tribunal issued the Award.
DJO’s 1st affidavit dated.
DJR’s 1st Affidavit dated.
Judgment reserved.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Natural Justice
    • Outcome: The court found that the arbitral tribunal breached the rules of natural justice.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to apply mind to essential issues
      • Reliance on extraneous matters
      • Apparent bias
  2. Setting Aside Arbitration Award
    • Outcome: The court granted the application to set aside the arbitration award.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Grounds for setting aside
      • Minimal curial intervention

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Setting Aside of Arbitration Award

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Natural Justice

10. Practice Areas

  • Arbitration
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Construction
  • Railway

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
BLC and others v BLB and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2014] 4 SLR 79SingaporeCited for the principle of minimal curial intervention in arbitral proceedings.
Soh Beng Tee & Co Pte Ltd v Fairmount Development Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 86SingaporeCited for the principle of minimal curial intervention and the limited right of recourse to the courts.
CJA v CIZCourt of AppealYes[2022] 2 SLR 557SingaporeCited to reaffirm the narrow grounds for curial intervention in arbitration proceedings.
DGE v DGFHigh CourtYes[2024] SGHC 107SingaporeCited for the requirements for establishing a ground to set aside an arbitral award under Art 34(2)(a)(iv) of the Model Law.
Lao Holdings NV and another v Government of the Lao People’s Democratic RepublicUnknownYes[2023] 1 SLR 55SingaporeCited for the requirements for establishing a ground to set aside an arbitral award under Art 34(2)(a)(iv) of the Model Law.
AMZ v AXXUnknownYes[2016] 1 SLR 549SingaporeCited for the requirements for establishing a ground to set aside an arbitral award under Art 34(2)(a)(iv) of the Model Law.
CAJ and another v CAI and another appealUnknownYes[2022] 1 SLR 505SingaporeCited regarding concern about hedging against an adverse result.
AKN and another v ALC and other appealsCourt of AppealYes[2015] 3 SLR 488SingaporeCited regarding the court not carrying out a hypothetical or excessively syntactical analysis of what the arbitrator has written.
BTN and another v BTP and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2021] 1 SLR 276SingaporeCited regarding the public policy ground for setting aside an award.
PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SAUnknownYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 597SingaporeCited regarding the public policy ground for setting aside an award.
Yap Ah Lai v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2014] 3 SLR 180SingaporeCited as an analogy to a case of cutting-and-pasting in arbitral proceedings.
CNQ v CNRHigh CourtYes[2023] 4 SLR 1031SingaporeCited concerning the situation of the same arbitrator having been appointed in related arbitration proceedings.
BOI v BOJCourt of AppealYes[2018] 2 SLR 1156SingaporeCited regarding the rule against prejudgment.
CVV and others v CVBCourt of AppealYes[2024] 1 SLR 32SingaporeCited regarding a breach of the fair hearing rule can arise from a tribunal’s failure to apply its mind to the essential issues arising from the parties’ arguments.
L W Infrastructure Pte Ltd v Lim Chin San Contractors Pte Ltd and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2013] 1 SLR 125SingaporeCited regarding the bar is not set as high as requiring the challenger to prove that a different outcome would necessarily have resulted but for the breach of natural justice.
The King v Sussex Justices, ex p McCarthyUnknownYes[1924] 1 KB 256England and WalesCited regarding the maxim that “justice should not only be done, but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”
W v AWHong Kong High CourtYes[2021] HKCFI 1707Hong KongInvolved the same parties being in two successive arbitrations involving some issues that were the same.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
International Chamber of Commerce Arbitration Rules 2021

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
International Arbitration Act 1994 (2020 Rev Ed)Singapore
Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996India
Minimum Wages Act 1948India

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Arbitration
  • Award
  • Setting Aside
  • Breach of Natural Justice
  • International Arbitration Act
  • UNCITRAL Model Law
  • Impartiality
  • Independence
  • Parallel Arbitrations
  • Pre-judging
  • Apparent Bias

15.2 Keywords

  • Arbitration
  • Setting Aside
  • Natural Justice
  • Singapore
  • International Arbitration
  • ICC
  • Tribunal
  • Bias

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Arbitration95
Recourse against award90
Natural justice90
Setting aside90
International Commercial Arbitration80
Commercial Disputes75
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards60

16. Subjects

  • Arbitration
  • International Commercial Law
  • Civil Litigation