DJA v DJB: Case Management Stay & Arbitration - Setting Aside Arbitral Award

In DJA v DJB, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore addressed the claimant's application for a case management stay of proceedings in HC/OA 1109/2023, which was the claimant's application to set aside a third partial award, pending the final determination of a related domestic arbitration. The court, presided over by AR Wong Hee Jinn on 28 February 2024 and with grounds issued on 2 September 2024, allowed the claimant's application, finding that a stay would promote an efficient, fair, and orderly resolution of the dispute. The court balanced factors such as the overlap of issues between the arbitration and the court proceedings, the risk of inconsistent findings, and the potential for delay, ultimately concluding that the stay served the interests of justice.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Claimant's application for a case management stay of proceedings in HC/OA 1109/2023 pending the final determination of a domestic arbitration was allowed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court addresses case management stay of application to set aside arbitral award pending related arbitration, balancing efficiency and fairness.

1.7 Decision Date

1 September 2024

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
DJA	Claimant	Other	Application for Case Management Stay Allowed	Won	Deborah Evaline Barker SC, Yvonne Mak Hui-Lin, U Sudharshanraj Naidu
DJB	Defendant	Other	Application for Case Management Stay Denied	Lost	Sandosham Paul Rabindranath, Elan Krishna, Kabir Singh, Deborah Loh

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Wong Hee Jinn	Assistant Registrar	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Deborah Evaline Barker SC	Withers Khattarwong LLP
Yvonne Mak Hui-Lin	Withers Khattarwong LLP
U Sudharshanraj Naidu	Withers Khattarwong LLP
Sandosham Paul Rabindranath	Cavenagh Law LLP
Elan Krishna	Cavenagh Law LLP
Kabir Singh	Clifford Chance LLP
Deborah Loh	Clifford Chance LLP

4. Facts

The claimant sought a case management stay of proceedings to set aside a partial arbitral award.
The claimant alleged fraud and corruption in the arbitration process.
The defendant opposed the stay, arguing it would cause undue delay.
A related arbitration (Arbitration C) involved similar issues of fraud and misconduct.
The court considered the overlap of issues and the risk of inconsistent findings.
The court balanced the interests of justice and efficient dispute resolution.

5. Formal Citations

DJA v DJB, Originating Application No 1109 of 2023(Summons No 283 of 2024), [2024] SGHCR 10

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2013-01-01	Share purchase agreement entered into between the parties
2016-09-01	Claimant exercised the put option and issued the Option Exercise Notice
2017-06-01	Claimant commenced Arbitration A
2020-06-03	Tribunal issued the first partial award
2020-12-16	Claimant's application to set aside parts of the First Partial Award was dismissed by the General Division of the High Court
2021-01-01	Claimant sought certain clarifications from the Tribunal regarding the First Partial Award
2021-08-03	Claimant applied to the Tribunal to investigate the defendant’s alleged unlawful conduct in relation to the engagement of the Firm
2021-08-18	Tribunal dismissed the Corruption Application
2021-10-29	Claimant commenced an action in court against the Firm vide HC/S 885/2021
2022-01-19	Tribunal issued the second partial award
2022-05-01	The Firm disclosed a series of documents as part of its discovery obligations in Suit 885
2022-08-01	The Firm disclosed a series of documents as part of its discovery obligations in Suit 885
2022-09-26	Claimant commenced HC/OC 287/2022 against the defendant
2022-10-11	Defendant informed the Tribunal of the commencement of Suit 287 and requested that the Tribunal hold off on issuing the Third Partial Award
2022-11-16	Defendant filed HC/SUM 3666/2022, seeking to stay all proceedings in Suit 287 in favor of Arbitration A
2022-12-23	Claimant filed a notice of arbitration with the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, thereby commencing Arbitration C against the defendant
2023-02-02	Defendant applied to the Tribunal to consolidate Arbitration C with Arbitration A and Arbitration B
2023-02-06	Claimant discontinued Suit 287
2023-05-08	Tribunal granted the defendant’s application to consolidate Arbitration C with Arbitration A and Arbitration B
2023-07-28	Tribunal issued the Third Partial Award
2023-09-06	Tribunal issued a “Memorandum of Corrections of the Third Partial Award dated 28 July 2023”
2023-09-19	Claimant applied to the Tribunal to stay the Directions
2023-09-22	Tribunal dismissed the claimant’s application to stay the Directions
2023-09-22	Claimant filed an application to the court vide HC/SUM 2904/2023 on an urgent basis, seeking an interim injunction to restrain the Directions being carried out
2023-09-28	SUM 2904 was heard and dismissed by the court
2023-10-02	Second Closing was completed and the Remainder Shares were transferred to the defendant
2023-10-27	Claimant applied to set aside the Third Partial Award vide OA 1109
2023-11-24	First case conference of OA 1109
2023-11-23	Claimant filed Pre-Case Conference Questionnaire
2023-12-29	Defendant filed an application in Arbitration C seeking to stay those proceedings pending the final determination of Suit 885
2024-02-01	Claimant took out the present application vide HC/SUM 283/2024, seeking a stay of all proceedings in OA 1109
2024-02-28	Hearing before AR Wong Hee Jinn
2024-05-24	Suit 885 was dismissed by the General Division of the High Court
2024-09-02	AR Wong Hee Jinn provided the full grounds of decision

7. Legal Issues

Case Management Stay
- Outcome: The court allowed the claimant's application for a case management stay of proceedings in HC/OA 1109/2023 pending the final determination of a domestic arbitration.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Risk of inconsistent findings
  - Duplication of proceedings
  - Delay of resolution
Setting Aside Arbitral Award
- Outcome: The court considered the grounds for setting aside an arbitral award under s 48 of the Arbitration Act but did not make a final determination on the merits due to the stay.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Fraud
  - Corruption
  - Breach of natural justice

8. Remedies Sought

Stay of Court Proceedings
Setting Aside of Arbitral Award

9. Cause of Actions

Application for Case Management Stay
Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award

10. Practice Areas

Arbitration
Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
CIX v CIY	General Division of the High Court	Yes	[2021] SGHC 53	Singapore	Cited for the dismissal of the claimant's application to set aside parts of the First Partial Award.
Maybank Kim Eng Securities Pte Ltd v Lim Keng Yong and another	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2016] 3 SLR 431	Singapore	Cited as an example of when a case management stay of court proceedings may be warranted even if the claims are governed by divergent dispute resolution mechanisms under different agreements.
Star Engineering Pte Ltd v Pollisum Engineering Pte Ltd and another	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2024] SGHC 137	Singapore	Cited as an example of when a case management stay may be ordered even if only a portion of a claimant’s claims against a defendant in court proceedings fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
Tomolugen Holdings Ltd and another v Silica Investors Ltd and other appeals	Singapore Court of Appeal	Yes	[2016] 1 SLR 373	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court must aim to strike a balance between a plaintiff’s right to choose whom he wants to sue and where, the court’s desire to prevent a plaintiff from circumventing the operation of an arbitration clause, and the court’s inherent power to manage its processes.
Parastate Labs Inc v Wang Li and others	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2023] SGHC 48	Singapore	Cited as an example of when the entirety of the court proceedings may be stayed in the interests of case management even if the claimant wishes to concurrently pursue the allegations subject to arbitration.
PUBG Corp v Garena International I Pte Ltd and others	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2020] 2 SLR 379	Singapore	Cited as an example of when a case management stay might be granted to allow the arbitral proceedings to be determined first when the issue in arbitral proceedings concerns the validity of a settlement agreement.
Mitsui OSK Lines Ltd v Samudera Shipping Line Ltd	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2007] SGHC 41	Singapore	Cited as an example of when a case management stay may be granted pending the outcome of the arbitral proceedings where the defendant denies that it is a party to the arbitration agreement.
Trinity Construction Development Pte Ltd v Sinohydro Corp Ltd (Singapore Branch)	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2021] 3 SLR 1039	Singapore	Cited as an example of when a case management stay may be warranted since questions raised on the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal are rightly dealt with by the arbitral tribunal itself.
Rex International Holding Ltd and another v Gulf Hibiscus Ltd	Singapore Court of Appeal	Yes	[2019] 2 SLR 682	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a case management stay is part of the court’s exercise of its inherent jurisdiction to manage its own internal processes.
Jiang Haiying v Tan Lim Hui and another suit	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2009] 3 SLR(R) 13	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a statutory stay is confined to the parties that have entered into an arbitration agreement.
BTY v BUA and other matters	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2019] 3 SLR 786	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the jurisprudential basis of a statutory stay is fundamentally different from that of a case management stay.
Heartronics Corporation v EPI Life Pte Ltd and others	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2017] SGHCR 17	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a party seeking a case management stay does not dispute in any manner the court’s jurisdiction over the dispute in respect of which the case management stay is sought.
CJD v CJE and another	Singapore Court of Appeal	Yes	[2021] 4 SLR 734	Singapore	Cited for the principle that party autonomy lies at the very heart of arbitration and permeates practically all aspects of it.
BC Andaman Co Ltd and others v Xie Ning Yun and another	Singapore Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 4 SLR 1232	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a case management stay only affects the plaintiff’s choice of the sequence in which he pursues proceedings against different defendants.
JE Synergy Engineering Pte Ltd v Niu Ji Wei and another (Sinohydro Corp Ltd (Singapore Branch), third party; Vico Construction Pte, fourth party)	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2023] SGHC 281	Singapore	Cited for a non-exhaustive list of factors that the court may consider to determine where the balance lies in an application for a case management stay.
CSY v CSZ	Singapore Court of Appeal	Yes	[2022] 2 SLR 622	Singapore	Cited for factors that were referred to in CSY are also relevant and may be considered in the context of a “case management quandary” faced by the court when it is asked to exercise its powers of a case management stay.
Minister of Finance (Incorporated) and another company v International Petroleum Investment Co and another company	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2019] EWCA Civ 2080	England and Wales	Cited by the defendant to support the argument that a stay of setting-aside proceedings on case management grounds should only be rarely granted and there should be compelling reasons to grant such a stay; the court distinguished this case.
Reichhold Norway ASA v Goldman Sachs International	England and Wales High Court	Yes	[2001] 1 WLR 173	England and Wales	Cited in the English Court of Appeal decision of Minister of Finance (Incorporated) and another company v International Petroleum Investment Co and another company [2019] EWCA Civ 2080 (“1MDB”) that the legal test to be applied was whether “this was one of the rare cases where a compelling case had been shown for a stay to be granted” and that it applied with “particular force in circumstances such as the present case”
Deutsche Telekom AG v The Republic of India	Singapore International Commercial Court	Yes	[2024] 3 SLR 1	Singapore	Cited for the principle that there was no suggestion by the Singapore International Commercial Court that the threshold was one set at a “rare and compelling” one; the court was of the view that the revision application had minimal prospect of success before the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.
FamilyMart China Holding Co Ltd v Ting Chuan (Cayman Islands) Holding Coprn	Judicial Committee of the Privy Council	Yes	[2024] Bus LR 190	Cayman Islands	Cited for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council’s recent observations in FamilyMart China Holding Co Ltd v Ting Chuan (Cayman Islands) Holding Coprn [2024] Bus LR 190, on appeal from the Court of Appeal of the Cayman Islands, that “[w]hile it is not necessary for the Board to decide this matter, it questions the proposition that a discretionary case management stay of winding up proceedings on the just and equitable ground where a substantial part of the dispute between the parties or some of the parties to the petition falls within the scope of a binding arbitration agreement should be granted only in rare and compelling circumstances.
Jiangsu Overseas Group Co Ltd v Concord Energy Pte Ltd and another matter	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2016] 4 SLR 1336	Singapore	Cited for the principle that cross-examination was generally not resorted to in applications to set aside arbitral awards.
Reliance Infrastructure Ltd v Shanghai Electric Group Co Ltd	Singapore International Commercial Court	Yes	[2024] SGHC(I) 3	Singapore	Cited for the principle that cross-examination in the context of an application to set aside an arbitral award has been permitted by the court.
Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels Inc and another v Global Gaming Philippines LLC and another	Singapore Court of Appeal	Yes	[2021] 2 SLR 1279	Singapore	Cited for the wide-ranging procedural and substantive powers available to an arbitral tribunal undertaking a fact-finding exercise.
Syed Ibrahim Shaik Mohideen v Wavoo Abdusalam Shahul Hameed and others	Singapore Court of Appeal	Yes	[2023] 4 SLR 903	Singapore	Cited for the default position is that it must be decided based on evidence adduced by affidavits and on oral or written submissions without oral evidence or cross-examination, pursuant to O 15 r 7(5) of the Rules of Court 2021
Rainforest Trading Ltd and another v State Bank of India Singapore	Singapore Court of Appeal	Yes	[2012] 2 SLR 713	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a conversion must be ordered the moment there are allegations of fraud are made by a defendant, for this would allow defendants to unnecessarily prolong and complicate otherwise straightforward and legitimate claims made against them
Republic of India v Vedanta Resources plc	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2020] SGHC 208	Singapore	Cited for the principle that there are no courts which [an arbitral tribunal’s] decisions bind as a matter of law.
PT First Media TBK (formerly known as PT Broadband Multimedia TBK) v Astro Nusantara International BV and others and another appeal	Singapore Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 1 SLR 372	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a court adopts a de novo standard of review on jurisdictional challenges.
DJO v DJP and others	Singapore International Commercial Court	Yes	[2024] SGHC(I) 24	Singapore	Cited for the principle that there is no wide-ranging right of appeal such as exists in the national laws.
CJY v CJZ and others	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2021] 5 SLR 569	Singapore	Cited for the principle that if a plaintiff has failed in its claim in an arbitration, it cannot then seek to procure an opposite outcome from the court, as that would be tantamount to an “impermissible collateral attack on the arbitration award against the plaintiff (which might also become a court judgment in the same terms), and an abuse of process”
The Royal Bank of Scotland NV (formerly known as ABN Amro Bank NV) and others v TT International Ltd (nTan Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd and others, other parties and another appeal)	Singapore Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 5 SLR 1104	Singapore	Cited for the policy that underlies the umbrella doctrine of res judicata, that is, that litigants should not be twice vexed in the same matter and that the public interest requires finality in litigation
Holland Leedon Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v Metalform Asia Pte Ltd	Singapore Court of Appeal	Yes	[2011] 2 SLR 1086	Singapore	Cited for the underlying policy of the Act was to promote the finality of the arbitration process and arbitral awards
Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels Inc and another v Global Gaming Philippines LLC and another	Singapore Court of Appeal	Yes	[2021] 1 SLR 1045	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an application to set aside an award may not be made more than three months after an arbitral award is issued and such period is not extendable, even in cases of fraud

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Singapore International Arbitration Centre Rules
Rules of Court 2021

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Arbitration Act 2001	Singapore
International Arbitration Act 1994	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Case Management Stay
Arbitration
Setting Aside
Arbitral Award
Fraud
Inherent Powers
Lex Arbitri
Party Autonomy
Issue Estoppel
Final Valuation

15.2 Keywords

arbitration
case management stay
setting aside arbitral award
Singapore
court
proceedings
fraud
delay
justice
dispute resolution

16. Subjects

Arbitration
Civil Procedure
Case Management
Commercial Dispute Resolution

17. Areas of Law

Arbitration Law
Civil Procedure
Case Management