- Singapore Court of Appeal clarifies grounds for setting aside arbitral awards and applicability of ’no evidence rule’ in Singapore (CEF and CEG v CEH)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Transfer Order—uncertain, ambiguous, impossible, unenforceable
- Repayment Order—no evidence rule
- Damages Order—fair hearing rule
- Award was sufficiently reasoned
- Case details
Arbitration analysis: In CEF and CEG v CEH  SGCA 54, the Singapore Court of Appeal dealt with a variety of orders in an arbitral award to determine whether they should be set aside. The appeal raised a number of novel points, with the appellants alleging that the orders were, inter alia, ‘uncertain, ambiguous, impossible and/or unenforceable’, in breach of the ‘no evidence rule’ applied to findings of fact made without evidential basis, and in breach of the fair hearing rule. The court found that ambiguity in or unenforceability of an award were not proper grounds for setting it aside, and that the ‘no evidence rule’ is not appropriate under Singapore law as it contravenes the principle of minimal curial intervention. The court also expounded on how an arbitral tribunal’s chain of reasoning can result in a breach of the fair hearing rule. Written by Wei Ming Tan, Of Counsel at CMS Holborn Asia.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial