Reed Smith Client Alerts

This client alert was originally published in Practical Law Arbitration. Reproduced with permission.  This client alert is co-written by Reed Smith Pte Ltd and Resource Law LLC who together form the Reed Smith Resource Law Alliance in Singapore. Reed Smith Pte Ltd is licensed to operate as a foreign law practice in Singapore. Where advice on Singapore law is required, we will refer the matter to and work with licensed Singapore law practices where necessary.

In GD Midea Air Conditioning Equipment Co Ltd v Tornado Consumer Goods Ltd [2017] SGHC 193, the Singapore High Court considered whether to set aside an arbitral award on the grounds that the arbitral tribunal had acted in excess of its jurisdiction on the facts.

Authors: Simon Jones Rachel Loke (Associate, Resource Law LLC)

* Simon Jones is a Partner in Reed Smith's Singapore office. Rachel Loke is an Associate in Resource Law LLC. 

Speedread

 Having found that the tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction, acted in breach of the agreed procedure and breached the rules of natural justice by deciding on an issue that was not referred to it for determination, the Singapore High Court set aside an award in part. Consequently, the order for enforcement of the award was also set aside in part.

This decision is a rare instance where the Singapore courts have set aside an award, albeit in part. As is clear from the decision, where the grounds for setting aside an award are met, the courts will not hesitate to make the appropriate orders. (GD Midea Air Conditioning Equipment Co Ltd v Tornado Consumer Goods Ltd [2017] SGHC 193.)