Setting aside arbitral awards in Singapore: due process and good faith obligations

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle (Academic Journal)peer-review

Abstract

The Singapore Court of Appeal in CMNC v Jaguar Energy has offered clarification on what it identified as an “important area of arbitration law”: i.e. the correct approach to alleged violations of due process by tribunals in their management of the arbitral procedure. The case involved setting aside proceedings in the context of a complex dispute further complicated by the parties’ prior agreement for an expedited procedure. The Court of Appeal judgment takes a robust approach towards alleged due process violations. It emphasises that the matter must be assessed according to a test of reasonableness and fairness with careful reference to the circumstances, and that courts should be cautious about interfering with a tribunal’s decision-making where there is a rational basis for those decisions. But CMNC v Jaguar Energy is notable for another reason: the presumption by the judge at first instance that there was implied into the arbitration agreement an obligation to arbitrate in good faith. That point may be of particular interest to those from common law jurisdictions where a more general debate over the role of good faith obligations in commercial contracts persists.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)429–440
Number of pages12
JournalArbitration International
Volume36
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 8 Aug 2020

Keywords

  • Arbitration
  • Due Process
  • Arbitration Agreements
  • Good Faith

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Setting aside arbitral awards in Singapore: due process and good faith obligations'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this