Singapore High Court Dismisses Set Aside Application

The Singapore courts have consistently upheld a pro-arbitration ethos, as evidenced by several recent rulings on set-aside applications.

In Haide Building Materials Co Ltd v Ship Recycling Investments Inc [2024] SGHC 222, the applicant sought to set aside an arbitral award stemming from a failed vessel sale, alleging breaches of natural justice, fraudulent evidence, deviation from agreed procedures, and bias.

The High Court determined that no significant procedural irregularities warranted setting aside the award; the arbitration had been conducted fairly and in adherence to the established procedures. It reiterated that it would not reassess the merits or the findings of the arbitrators, as such actions would contradict the essence of arbitration and the limited grounds for judicial review.

Furthermore, the court underscored the high threshold required to overturn an award, emphasizing that clear evidence of serious irregularity or natural justice violations was absent in this case. Public policy considerations were also taken into account, with the court concluding that annulling the award would undermine effective dispute resolution and the integrity of the arbitration process.

The application was dismissed, and the court voiced its concern over the increasing tendency to adopt overly broad arguments in set-aside applications, cautioning against a “blunderbuss approach” that indiscriminately challenges awards. This ruling reinforces the principle of finality in arbitration, affirming that arbitration serves to provide definitive resolutions without excessive judicial intrusion.

The application was dismissed and the Court took the opportunity to “register a concern at what has increasingly become a prevalent practice in setting aside applications”, which was to “adopt a blunderbuss approach to their grounds of challenge, throwing everything but the kitchen sink (and often the kitchen sink itself) at the award and the tribunal”.  

The court upheld the principle of respecting the finality of arbitration awards, reinforcing that arbitration is intended to provide a conclusive resolution to disputes without extensive judicial interference.