Singapore Court of Appeal dismisses appeal against successful early dismissal under the SIAC rules

In DBO and others v DBP and others [2024] SGCA(I) 4, the Singapore Court of Appeal had the opportunity to decide on an appeal arising from a decision of a SIAC tribunal under Rule 29 of the SIAC Rules (2016). Rule 29 of the SIAC Rules gives tribunals the power to dismiss claims and defenses that are "manifestly without legal merit" and to short-circuit proceedings. 

The SIAC arbitration concerned a loan facility where the borrower sought to set aside the SIAC award. The borrower petitioned the Singapore High Court to set aside the partial award, claiming that the tribunal had violated natural justice and denied it the right to present its case by summarily dismissing its claim when the security agreement was a "critical disputed fact". In support of its argument, the borrower relied on the case of "CBS v CBP [2021] 1 SLR 935 ("CBS")". According to the borrower, as a matter of natural justice, a summary review of disputed facts could not be conducted. 

The tribunal rejected the claimant's argument that the case was comparable to CBS, noting that the basic facts of the alleged Subsequent Agreement were disputed in CBS. However, the tribunal's findings in this case were independent of any disputed underlying facts. The tribunal concluded that the Subsequent Agreement could not be established based on the underlying facts, which it had assumed to be true based on the claimants' pleadings. 

The court added that the tribunal's alleged failure to presume the existence of the Collateral Contract would have been an error of law rather than a breach of natural justice, even if it had been required to do so by the "manifestly unfounded in law" criterion under Rule 29.1 of the SIAC Rules.