The Court of Appeal’s (“CA”) decision in DJP and others v DJO [2025] SGCA(I) 2 has struck an ideal balance between affirming Singapore’s pro-arbitration stance while safeguarding parties’ right to a fair and impartial arbitration process.

In the words of the Singapore Chief Justice, “a fair process is foundational to the legitimacy of arbitration” because parties are “generally not accorded the right of appeal against a tribunal’s decision”. Therefore, the integrity of the arbitration process is sacrosanct so that parties who choose arbitration are afforded due process.

This case concerns the setting aside of an arbitral award on the grounds of a breach of the rules of natural justice. Here, a Presiding Arbitrator was appointed in an arbitration (“Arbitration”) after having presided over two other prior arbitrations (“Parallel Arbitrations”). All three arbitrations concerrned the same commercial project. The Presiding Arbitrator was fully exposed to the facts in the Parallel Arbitrations whilst being expected to keep an open mind in the Arbitration. However, the arbitration tribunal (“Tribunal”) produced the award (“Award”) by heavily drawing on the Parallel Arbitrations awards.

At first instance (DJO v DJP and others [2024] SGHC(I) 24), the SICC set aside the Award on the basis of a breach of the rules of natural justice. The parties were denied the right to a fair and independent process because the Tribunal had not applied its mind to the differences between the Arbitration and the Parallel Arbitrations.

In dismissing the Appeal, the CA opined that as long as a reasonable person would suspect that the Tribunal had not approached the matter with fairness, the Award may be set aside. The CA clarified that the test was not whether the Tribunal acted in bad faith but whether the integrity of the decision-making process was compromised.

Here, the Tribunal’s copying of the prior awards would lead to the suspicion that the Presiding Arbitrator had been improperly influenced by the Parallel Arbitrations and that amounted to a breach of natural justice.

This case demonstrates the fine balance between ensuring finality of awards and upholding the integrity of the arbitration process. While the Singapore Courts often enforce arbitral awards, where a party’s right to a fair process has been compromised, the Court will act swiftly and decisively in ensuring that the party’s due process right is protected.

SC LLC has been instructed by clients and law firms in setting aside matters where arguments on due process and miscarriage of justice have been put forward before the Courts. There is a three-month timeline for making the setting aside application. We encourage you to work with lawyers who are familiar with both arbitration and the Singapore court process to ensure that you (or your client) put your best case forward in the setting aside application.

For more information, kindly contact Shobna Chandran LLC.