Reed Smith Client Alerts

This article was originally published in Practical Law Arbitration. Reproduced with permission. This article 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 LLP is licensed to operate as a foreign law practice in Singapore under the name and style, Reed Smith Pte Ltd (hereafter collectively, “Reed Smith”). Where advice on Singapore law is required, we will refer the matter to and work with Reed Smith’s Formal Law Alliance partner in Singapore, Resource Law LLC, where necessary.

In BSM v BSN and another matter [2019] SGHC 185, the Singapore High Court refused an application to set aside two related international arbitration awards where the tribunal had subsequently cured the defects in the awards following remission to the tribunal.

Authors: Dan Perera Nikisha Mirpuri

Speedread

The Singapore High Court has refused an application to set aside two related international arbitration awards. In refusing the application, the High Court had first utilised its curative powers in earlier proceedings under Article 34(4) of the Model Law, which allows the court to suspend setting aside proceedings and remit a matter to an arbitral tribunal to give the tribunal an opportunity to cure a defect in the award and eliminate grounds for setting aside.

The decision demonstrates the high bar required to set aside an international arbitral award in Singapore, on the grounds of breach of natural justice and/or denial of the opportunity to be heard.

(BSM v BSN and another matter [2019] SGHC 185) (13 August 2019).)