- Unsuccessful challenge against Singapore arbitral award? No presumption of indemnity costs (CDM v CDP)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Question 1—the tribunal had not exceeded its jurisdiction or breached natural justice
- Question 2—no presumption of indemnity costs in the event of an unsuccessful application for setting aside an award
- Case details
Arbitration analysis: This judgment of the Singapore Court of Appeal (CA) determined an appeal against a refusal to set aside an arbitral award issued in proceedings seated in Singapore on the basis that the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction and breached natural justice by basing its decision on a matter which was not raised in the notice of arbitration (NOA) or statement of claim (SOC). The CA upheld dismissal of the challenge and held the question of whether an issue was within the scope of the parties’ submission to arbitration was answerable by reference to the (1) parties’ pleadings, (2) agreed list of issues (ALOI), (3) opening statement, (4) evidence adduced, and (5) closing submissions. The tribunal was entitled to base its decision on an issue which was not the emphasis of the parties’ cases in the arbitration. The court declined to adopt the presumption applying in Hong Kong that indemnity costs would be awarded in instances where an award is unsuccessfully challenged. Written by Kent Phillips, partner, Chia Shi Jin, associate and Mark Lee, associate at Hogan Lovells Lee & Lee.
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