Legal News

Singapore—correction requests a matter of substance not just form to qualify for extension of time to file setting-aside application (BRS v BPQ)

Singapore—correction requests a matter of substance not just form to qualify for extension of time to file setting-aside application (BRS v BPQ)
Published on: 06 November 2020
Published by: LexisPSL
  • Singapore—correction requests a matter of substance not just form to qualify for extension of time to file setting-aside application (BRS v BPQ)
  • What are the practical implications of this case?
  • What was the background?
  • What did the court decide?
  • Was the Seller’s setting-aside application time-barred?
  • With respect to the Claimants, was there was a breach of natural justice for failing to wholly consider certain evidence/arguments in determining the Cut-off Date?
  • Case details

Article summary

Arbitration analysis: The Singapore Court of Appeal held that requests for tribunals to make ‘corrections’ to arbitral awards must constitute correction requests pursuant to Article 33(1)(a) of the UNCITRAL Model Law of International Commercial Arbitration (the Model Law) in substance and not just form in order to qualify for an extension of time to file a setting-aside application pursuant to Article 34(3) of the Model Law. In this case, the relevant party’s request was not in substance a request for corrections, which meant the party’s request did not have the effect of extending the time permitted for a setting-aside application, rendering the party’s application out of time. The Court of Appeal also upheld an appeal against the High Court’s dismissal of a setting-aside application, finding a breach of natural justice which caused real and actual prejudice due to the tribunal’s failure to consider key evidence and arguments. The award was accordingly remitted to the tribunal for consideration. Written by Kevin Au, associate, at Clyde & Co Clasis Singapore. or take a trial to read the full analysis.

Popular documents