Background
DLS (Claimant/ “the Contractor”) and DLT (Respondent/ “the Sub-Contractor”) were parties to a Singapore-seated ICC arbitration (“the Arbitration”) with a three-member arbitral tribunal (“the Tribunal”). The Claimant had applied to set aside two decisions in the first Partial award passed on 19 June 2024, and subsequently filed an application introducing apparent bias as a fresh basis for setting aside the award. However, the Singapore High Court dismissed both the applications on 27 March 2025, finding that the Claimant should not be allowed to introduce a fresh ground, which in any event could not succeed and is “hopeless”.
Following this, on 28 March 2025, the Claimant filed a challenge under Article 13(3) of the UNCITRAL Model Law seeking to remove the Arbitrator for apparent bias (“Challenge Application”). Prior to this, the ICC Court had already dismissed a similar challenge on 27 February 2025, finding that there are no justifiable doubts as to the Arbitrator’s impartiality and independence.
While the challenge application was pending before the Singapore Court, the Claimant initiated foreign proceedings on 15 April 2025, seeking a declaration that the Respondent is not entitled to continue arbitration with the same challenged tribunal and a permanent injunction. However, the foreign court questioned the parallel proceedings by the Claimant in two jurisdictions. In response, the Claimant submitted that it was considering withdrawing the challenge application from Singapore Court. Thus, on 16 May 2025, the Claimant filed an application seeking permission to discontinue the challenge application.
Meanwhile, the Respondent responded by filing an application for an interim anti-suit injunction to restrain the Claimant-initiated foreign proceedings. On 23 May 2025, the Singapore court granted the interim anti-suit injunction and refused to allow the discontinuance of the challenge application, and adjourned it for further hearing holding that “pursuant to Art 13(3) of the Model Law, the challenge against the subject Arbitrator was a matter to be determined by the Singapore seat court.” Thus, the Singapore High Court claimed jurisdiction to hear the challenge application filed by the Claimant.
Issues and Decision
Whether the Challenge application is barred by the principle of res judicata.
At the final hearing, the Counsel for the Claimant submitted that they have instructions “not to make any submission at all”. The allegation by the Claimant was that one of the Arbitrators had not disclosed his position as an Arbitrator in a prior arbitration in which the Respondent’s chairman was the Claimant and was represented by the same counsels representing the Respondent in the present arbitration. While the case set up by the Claimant before ICC Court was on the basis of prior arbitration, while seeking setting aside of the award, the case set up by the Claimant was of non-disclosure and the Claimant also abandoned various other contentions although taken by it before ICC Court.
The Respondent submitted that the challenge application deserves dismissal since it was barred by res-judicata as the matter in question had already been decided by the Court against the Claimant on 27 March 2025. It was also contended that the Claimant could not be allowed to make additional allegations which it had not raised before the ICC Court. Lastly, it was submitted that the challenge application was substantively without merit.
The Court noted that the prior decision rejected the claim of bias on merits, against which no appeal has been filed by the Claimant, and the said decision has become unappealable, final and conclusive. The challenge application was an attempt to re-litigate the same issue of bias [¶25] and held that requirements of res-judicata/issue estoppel were met [¶26], and that there were no special circumstances that could render res-judicata inapplicable [¶27]. The Court also relied on Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc[1] to observe that no further material/evidence had been made available by the Claimant for the correct determination of an issue decided in earlier proceedings [¶27]. Thus, the Court held that the Claimant was restrained by res-judicata/issue estoppel from challenging the Arbitrator on the same ground of apparent bias [¶39].
On whether the challenge application had any merits
Rebutting the allegations of bias raised by the Claimant, the Court observed that the Respondent Chairman’s involvement in the prior arbitration was in his personal capacity, and there was no connection between the two arbitrations in terms of facts, subject matter, or issues. It was also observed that the Arbitrator’s appointments to the two arbitrations were more than four years apart [¶23].
The Court further observed that the mere fact that the Respondent’s chairman’s full name appeared in various documents in the arbitration does not mean that the subject Arbitrator knew of the relationship between the them in the two arbitrations [¶32]. It also observed that the contention that the Respondent was the alter ego of its Chairman is a baseless allegation unsupported by any facts [¶34]. Thus, the Court agreed with the ICC Court’s decision and held that there was no apparent bias on part of the Arbitrator [¶39].
Significance
This case highlights the supervisory role of the Singapore High Court in international arbitrations seated in Singapore – particularly in handling Arbitrator challenges under Article 13(3) of the UNCITRAL Model Law. It reiterates that once a claim of bias has been conclusively determined by the seat court, re-litigating the same under the guise of a new application is barred by the principle of res judicata. Further, the judgment affirms that allegations of apparent bias must meet a high threshold of evidence and relevance, and that mere associative connections or baseless claims are insufficient. By upholding the integrity of the tribunal and limiting forum shopping through granting anti-suit injunctive relief, the Court showed its commitment to maintaining the efficacy and finality of arbitral proceedings seated in Singapore.
Case Details
Citation Code: [2025] SGHC 139
Date of Judgement: 24 July 2025
Forum: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
Bench: Andre Maniam J
[1] [1991] 2 AC 93
Author(s)
Tejas Jain
Student at Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies