Setting Aside Arbitral Awards in Singapore: Studies of Recent Cases
Abstract
Once an arbitral award is issued by an arbitral tribunal, the award is final and binding on the parties to the dispute, in the same way as a court judgment is final and binding in a lawsuit. Needless to say, this does not bode well for the party in whose favour the award is made against, who may be of the view that the award should not have been made the way it was for some reason. In which case, the party may apply to have the arbitral award set aside.
The article reviews some recent applications to the Singapore courts to set aside Singapore-seated arbitral awards, and in particular the reasoning of the Singapore Courts in reaching decisions on whether or not to set aside. We hope that this article will offer practical guidance to Thai legal practitioners, Thai legal counsel and THAC arbitrators and tribunals.
References
According to Section 5(2) of the IAA, an arbitration is international if: (a) at least one of the parties has its place of business outside of Singapore; (b) the place of arbitration, or the place where a substantial part of the obligations of the commercial relationship is to be performed, or the place with which the subject matter of the dispute is most closely connected, is outside of the state where the parties have their place of business; or (c) the parties have agreed that the subject matter of the arbitration agreement relates to more than one country.
Section 3 of the IAA.
Art 34(3) of the Model Law.
Soh Beng Tee & Co Pte Ltd v Fairmount Development Pte Ltd [2007] 3 SLR(R) 86 at [65(c)].
Soh Beng Tee & Co Pte Ltd v Fairmount Development Pte Ltd [2007] 3 SLR(R) 86 at [59].
Soh Beng Tee & Co Pte Ltd v Fairmount Development Pte Ltd [2007] 3 SLR(R) 86 at [65(f)].
Soh Beng Tee & Co Pte Ltd v Fairmount Development Pte Ltd [2007] 3 SLR(R) 86 at [65(f)].
Lawrence Boo & Delphine Ho, “Arbitration” (2021) 22 SAL Ann Rev 87.
Lawrence Boo & Delphine Ho, “Arbitration” (published on e-First 10 July 2023, SAL Annual Review).
Sai Wan Shipping Ltd v Landmark Line Co Ltd [2022] 4 SLR 1302 at [12]
Sai Wan Shipping Ltd v Landmark Line Co Ltd [2022] 4 SLR 1302 at [14].
Sai Wan Shipping Ltd v Landmark Line Co Ltd [2022] 4 SLR 1302 at [18]-[21].
Sai Wan Shipping Ltd v Landmark Line Co Ltd [2022] 4 SLR 1302 at [57], [72].
Sai Wan Shipping Ltd v Landmark Line Co Ltd [2022] 4 SLR 1302 at [64].
Sai Wan Shipping Ltd v Landmark Line Co Ltd [2022] 4 SLR 1302 at [67], [69].
Sai Wan Shipping Ltd v Landmark Line Co Ltd [2022] 4 SLR 1302 at [65].
Sai Wan Shipping Ltd v Landmark Line Co Ltd [2022] 4 SLR 1302 at [74], [77].
[2022] 3 SLR 447.
BZV v BZW [2022] 3 SLR 447 at [208].
BZV v BZW [2022] 3 SLR 447 at [209].
BZV v BZW [2022] 3 SLR 447 at [210].
BZV v BZW [2022] 3 SLR 447 at [213].
BZW v BZV [2022] 1 SLR 1080.
[2021] 3 SLR 1271.
Year Sun Chemitanks Terminal Corp v Gunvor Singapore Pte Ltd [2021] 3 SLR 1271 at [45].
Year Sun Chemitanks Terminal Corp v Gunvor Singapore Pte Ltd [2021] 3 SLR 1271 at [66].
[2022] SGHC 267.
Reported as CNQ v CNR [2021] SGHC 287.
CNQ v CNR [2022] SGHC 267 at [4].
CNQ v CNR [2022] SGHC 267 at [27].
CNQ v CNR [2022] SGHC 267 at [28].
CNQ v CNR [2022] SGHC 267 at [56].
CNQ v CNR [2022] SGHC 267 at [33]-[43].
CNQ v CNR [2022] SGHC 267 at [44]-[52].
[2022] 3 SLR 319.
CMJ v CML [2022] 3 SLR 319 at [43].
CMJ v CML [2022] 3 SLR 319 at [44].
CMJ v CML [2022] 3 SLR 319 at [74].
CMJ v CML [2022] 3 SLR 319 at [69]-[70].
CMJ v CML [2022] 3 SLR 319 at [73]-[82].
CMJ v CML [2022] 3 SLR 319 at [91]-[92].
[2021] 4 SLR 1176.
CIM v CIN [2021] 4 SLR 1176 at [8].
CIM v CIN [2021] 4 SLR 1176 at [59].
CIM v CIN [2021] 4 SLR 1176 at [69].
CIM v CIN [2021] 4 SLR 1176 at [71].
[2022] 1 SLR 505.
CAJ v CAI [2022] 1 SLR 505 at [29]-[32].
CAJ v CAI [2022] 1 SLR 505 at [43]-[46].
CAJ v CAI [2022] 1 SLR 505 at [54].
CAJ v CAI [2022] 1 SLR 505 at [55].
[2022] 2 SLR 13.
Phoenixfin Pte Ltd v Convexity Ltd [2022] 2 SLR 13 at [41].
Phoenixfin Pte Ltd v Convexity Ltd [2022] 2 SLR 13 a [43].
Phoenixfin Pte Ltd v Convexity Ltd [2022] 2 SLR 13 a [45].
Phoenixfin Pte Ltd v Convexity Ltd [2022] 2 SLR 13 a [49].
Phoenixfin Pte Ltd v Convexity Ltd [2022] 2 SLR 13 a [53].
[2021] 2 SLR 235.
CDM v CDP [2021] 2 SLR 235 at [20]-[24].
CDM v CDP [2021] 2 SLR 235 at [25]-[29].
CDM v CDP [2021] 2 SLR 235 at [30]-[32].
CDM v CDP [2021] 2 SLR 235 at [33].
CDM v CDP [2021] 2 SLR 235 at [44].
[2022] 2 SLR 557.
CJA v CIZ [2022] 2 SLR 557 at [72].
CJA v CIZ [2022] 2 SLR 557 at [57]-[59].
CJA v CIZ [2022] 2 SLR 557 at [77].
CJA v CIZ [2022] 2 SLR 557 at [78].
[2022] 2 SLR 918.
CEF v CEH [2022] 2 SLR 918 at [31(a)(i)], [33].
CEF v CEH [2022] 2 SLR 918 at [35].
CEF v CEH [2022] 2 SLR 918 at [39].
CEF v CEH [2022] 2 SLR 918 at [43].
CEF v CEH [2022] 2 SLR 918 at [48].
CEF v CEH [2022] 2 SLR 918 at [52]. In any event, the Singapore Court of Appeal did not consider the award to be impossible or unworkable.
[2023] 1 SLR 55.
Lao Holdings NV and another v Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic [2023] 1 SLR 55 at [102].
Lao Holdings NV and another v Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic [2023] 1 SLR 55 at [102].
Lao Holdings NV and another v Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic [2023] 1 SLR 55 at [138].
[2022] 4 SLR 314.
CPU v CPX [2022] 4 SLR 314 at [7].
CPU v CPX [2022] 4 SLR 314 at [58].
CPU v CPX [2022] 4 SLR 314 at [7].
CPU v CPX [2022] 4 SLR 314 at [60].
CPU v CPX [2022] 4 SLR 314 at [62].
CPU v CPX [2022] 4 SLR 314 at [63].
[2022] SGHC 17.
CLX v CLY [2022] SGHC 17 at [6].
CLX v CLY [2022] SGHC 17 at [60].
Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels Inc and another v Global Gaming Philippines LLC and another [2021] 3 SLR 725. The key principles from the requirements in Bloomberry are set out at [59] of CLX v CLY [2022] SGHC 17.
CLX v CLY [2022] SGHC 17 at [66], [70].
CLX v CLY [2022] SGHC 17 at [75].
CLX v CLY [2022] SGHC 17 at [76].
CLX v CLY [2022] SGHC 17 at [79].
CLX v CLY [2022] SGHC 17 at [58]-[59].
PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SA [2007] 1 SLR(R) 597 at [59].
[2020] 5 SLR 184.
CBX v CBZ [2020] 5 SLR 184 at [52].
CBX v CBZ [2020] 5 SLR 184 at [52].
CBX v CBZ [2020] 5 SLR 184 at [58].
CBX v CBZ [2020] 5 SLR 184 at [61].
Sai Wan Shipping Ltd v Landmark Line Co Ltd [2022] 4 SLR 1302 at [78].
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 THAC Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
