- Singapore—Court of Appeal deals with alleged fraud in arbitration and time limits for setting aside (Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels v Global Gaming Philippines)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Time limit for setting-aside applications
- When an award is induced or affected by fraud
- Case details
Arbitration analysis: This case involved an application to set aside an arbitral award under section 24(a) of the Singapore International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A) (the IAA) on the basis that it was induced or affected by fraud. The applicant argued that the respondent had concealed or suppressed evidence of a regulatory investigation into fraud and corruption that was related to the underlying arbitration, which, if disclosed, would have materially affected the outcome of the arbitration. The application was dismissed, and the court gave helpful guidance on the meaning of ‘fraud’ under the IAA, s 24(a). ‘Fraud’ refers to procedural fraud occurring in the course of the arbitration that is causatively linked to the making of the award. The court also clarified that all applications to set aside arbitral awards under the IAA, including under IAA, s 24, are strictly subject to the three-month time limit in Article 34(3) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the ‘Model Law’), even in cases of fraud. Written by Daryl Chew, partner, and Shaun Pereira, associate, at Shearman & Sterling LLP, with assistance from Daniel Ang.
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