Singapore Court of Appeal: Restricted Ability to Challenge Arbitral Award After Non-Participation

The Singapore Court of Appeal (SGCA) in DEM v DEL [2025] SGCA 1  ruled that a party who refused to participate in arbitration could not later challenge the award for failing to address an unraised issue.

The Appellant and two others entered into a Business Purchase Agreement (BPA) with the Respondent for the sale of a franchised enrichment center, specifying an address and email for notices. After discovering misconduct by the Appellant and others, the Respondent initiated arbitration at the SIAC. Despite proper notification, the Appellant did not participate. The arbitration proceeded, and after the Respondent settled with the others, an award was issued in its favor. The Appellant later sought to set it aside, but the SGCA dismissed the appeal.

Under section 48(1)(a)(iii) of the Arbitration Act 2001 (2020 Rev Ed) (AA), the burden was on the Appellant to prove lack of proper notice. The SGCA held that notice could be actual or deemed, finding that the Appellant had actual notice due to his email exchange with the arbitrator. Even if actual notice were absent, deemed notice was satisfied as documents were sent to the email listed in the BPA. The court rejected claims that a party could evade notice by later disputing accessibility to their provided email addresses.

The Appellant argued that the award should be set aside under section 48(1)(a)(iv) of the AA (mirroring Article 34(2)(a)(iii) of the UNCITRAL Model Law), claiming the arbitrator failed to consider the issue of lack of consideration in the BPA. The SGCA rejected this argument, clarifying that infra petita (failure to address an issue within the scope of submission) is a separate natural justice challenge requiring proof of prejudice. Citing China Machine New Energy Corp v Jaguar Energy Guatemala LLC and another [2020] 1 SLR 695, the SGCA ruled that such challenge is unavailable to parties who did not participate, file pleadings, or raise the issue before the tribunal. Since the arbitrator had no chance to rule on the issue, the challenge failed, as did the Appellant’s related natural justice claim.

The decision underscores that non-participation in arbitration may severely limit a party’s ability to challenge an award.