Skip to main content

Singapore Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award Over Extensive Copy-Pasting by Tribunal

Introduction

In a significant judgment that has sent ripples across the arbitration and legal community, the Singapore Court of Appeal recently upheld a decision to set aside an arbitral award after finding that nearly half of the award was copied verbatim from earlier cases. The tribunal in question was chaired by former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra, making the case even more high-profile.

This judgment raises crucial questions about impartiality, independent assessment, and the ethical standards expected from arbitrators globally.

Background of the Dispute

The case arose out of a contract dispute between a special-purpose vehicle managing freight corridors in India and a consortium of infrastructure companies. The disagreement revolved around whether a 2017 notification by the Indian government — which increased the minimum wages — entitled the consortium to additional payments under their contract.

When negotiations between the parties failed, the matter went for arbitration under the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), with Singapore as the seat of arbitration.

The tribunal comprised:

  • Former CJI Dipak Misra (Chairperson)

  • Justice Krishn Kumar Lahoti (Former Judge, Madhya Pradesh High Court)

  • Justice Gita Mittal (Former Chief Justice, Jammu & Kashmir High Court)

In November 2023, the tribunal passed an award in favour of the consortium.

The Allegations Against the Award

The losing party challenged the award before the Singapore High Court, alleging that the tribunal had excessively relied on two prior arbitral awards (in related but separate disputes), both chaired by Justice Misra himself.

Shockingly, it was found that out of 451 paragraphs in the award, 212 paragraphs were copied word-for-word from these earlier awards.

Findings of the Singapore High Court

The Singapore High Court found multiple lapses by the arbitral tribunal, which amounted to breaches of natural justice:

1. Failure to Independently Assess the Case

Some of the copied portions referred to submissions made in previous arbitrations, not in the present case.

2. Application of Incorrect Legal Principles

The tribunal incorrectly referred to the wrong version of a contractual clause and applied Indian arbitration law instead of Singapore law — which was the governing law.

3. Appearance of Bias

The extensive copying gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that the tribunal had pre-judged the matter without proper consideration of the present case's specific facts.

Court of Appeal’s Verdict: Upholding the High Court

The Singapore Court of Appeal, led by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and Justice Steven Chong, agreed with the High Court’s reasoning.

Key Reasons:

  • A fair-minded observer could reasonably perceive that the tribunal lacked an open mind.

  • Heavy reliance on prior awards indicated anchoring bias (fixating on initial information) and confirmation bias (favouring pre-existing conclusions).

  • The tribunal used materials from parallel arbitrations that were never part of the present proceedings.

Why This Judgment Matters

This decision is a landmark moment in arbitration law for several reasons:

→ Reaffirms Importance of Natural Justice

Every arbitration must be approached with an open mind, free from pre-judgments.

→ Arbitrators Must Provide Independent Analysis

Even in cases with similar facts, tribunals must independently assess the specific evidence and arguments of the present dispute.

→ Copy-Pasting from Prior Awards is Risky

Reliance on past awards without careful adaptation or fresh analysis can lead to setting aside of the award.

Final Thoughts

This case is a timely reminder that arbitration — often chosen for its efficiency and speed — cannot sacrifice fairness, independence, and integrity. Even the most respected and experienced arbitrators are not beyond judicial scrutiny.

For legal professionals, this judgment underscores the importance of maintaining high ethical standards in dispute resolution — ensuring that every party gets a fair hearing based on its unique facts and circumstances.

Follow us for more such insights into global developments in law and arbitration.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

India’s Extradition Treaties: How They Impact the Vijay Mallya & Nirav Modi Cases

Introduction Extradition is a critical tool in international law that enables countries to hand over fugitives to jurisdictions where they face criminal charges. India has signed extradition treaties with over 50 countries and extradition arrangements with 11 others to curb financial crimes, terrorism, and other serious offenses. However, high-profile cases like Vijay Mallya and Nirav Modi have tested India's extradition mechanisms and diplomatic relations. This article explores India's extradition laws, its treaties, and the challenges faced in these landmark cases. Understanding Extradition Laws in India 1. The Extradition Act, 1962 The primary legal framework governing extradition in India is T he Extradition Act, 1962 . This Act provides the conditions and procedures for extradition between India and foreign nations. Extradition Treaty Countries : India has formal agreements with over 50 countries , including the UK, USA, UAE, and Canada , which provide a legal basis for...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Role of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in Framing the Indian Constitution

Introduction Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, popularly known as the architect of the Indian Constitution, played a pivotal role in drafting and shaping the fundamental law of independent India. As the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, he was instrumental in laying the foundation of a just, inclusive, and democratic India. His contributions not only ensured legal safeguards for marginalized communities but also established India as a sovereign, socialist, secular, and democratic republic. In this blog, we will explore Dr. Ambedkar’s contributions to the making of the Indian Constitution, his vision, the challenges he faced, and his lasting impact on Indian democracy. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: A Visionary Leader Born on April 14, 1891, Dr. Ambedkar was a social reformer, economist, and legal expert. His early experiences with caste-based discrimination fueled his determination to uplift the downtrodden and establish a legal system based on equality and justice. He earned multiple degrees, includi...
Post a Comment
Read more

R v. Dudley and Stephens (1884): A Landmark Case on Necessity Defense

Introduction The 1884 case of R v. Dudley and Stephens (14 QBD 273) is one of the most pivotal rulings in English criminal law, specifically regarding the Defense of Necessity in murder cases . This landmark judgment established the legal precedent that necessity cannot be invoked as a defense for murder , even in dire, life-threatening circumstances. Case Background: Survival at Sea In July 1884, Thomas Dudley, Edward Stephens, Brooks, and Richard Parker (a 17-year-old cabin boy) were left adrift after their yacht, Mignonette , sank. For over 20 days, the men survived on limited resources, including turnips and a turtle they managed to catch. As the situation worsened and Parker became gravely weak, Dudley and Stephens resolved to kill and consume Parker in order to survive. Although Brooks abstained from participating in Parker's death, he later consumed Parker's flesh. On the 24th day, the survivors were rescued by a passing ship. Upon their return to England, Dudley and St...
Post a Comment
Read more