In <span class="news-text_italic-underline">DJP and others v DJO [2025] SGCA(I) 2</span>, the Singapore Court of Appeal affirmed the Singapore International Commercial Court’s decision to set aside an award, holding that the entire decision-making process employed in the arbitration amounted to a breach of natural justice. Amongst other things, the tribunal had not approached the case with an open mind, relying in its award on contractual provisions, arguments and authorities raised in earlier parallel arbitrations involving similar issues and quoting extensively from the awards in those other proceedings.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the lower court that a fair-minded and informed observer would reasonably apprehend that the award was prepared by a tribunal that did not keep an open mind because the earlier awards impermissibly influenced it. While emphasising that it was not inherently wrong for an arbitrator to resolve two related disputes in the same manner, in this case, the Court found apparent bias because portions from the earlier awards were reproduced in the award without being adjusted for differences in the arguments made or the terms of the applicable contracts. The latter resulted in significant errors, such as the tribunal referring to incorrect contractual provisions and applying the wrong lex arbitri to issues of interest and costs.
The Court of Appeal also agreed that the fair hearing rule had been breached because the tribunal derived substantial extraneous material from the parallel arbitrations, which had not been brought to the parties' attention and therefore could not be addressed by them.
The Court of Appeal further held that the expectation of equality between the tribunal's arbitrators had been compromised since only the president had been privy to the parallel arbitrations. The two co-arbitrators had no direct access to any material or knowledge derived from the parallel arbitrations, even though these appeared to have significantly influenced the arbitration's outcome.
Finally, despite the Court's policy of minimal curial intervention, the breach of natural justice in this case affected the entire decision-making process and "permeated the whole award." Therefore, it was appropriate to set aside the award in its entirety.
In its conclusion, the Court of Appeal stressed that it did not suggest any bad faith by members of the tribunal, whose names had been disclosed in the decision. Rather, its decision rested on the importance of safeguarding the integrity and fairness of the arbitral process, which is the "primary right" accorded to those who opt to resolve their disputes through arbitration.
