The facts of DDI v DDJ [2024] SGHC 68 (“DDI”) are eye-catching, with a mix of drama-worthy elements – jewellery of uncertain origins, celebrities of uncertain bankability, and a billionaire uncle of uncertain existence. Against this sparkling backdrop, DDI poses a serious question: Under what circumstances will an arbitrator’s conduct in the arbitration be in breach of the rules of natural justice, such that a court may set aside the arbitral award? Does a robust challenge of an expert’s views demonstrate that the arbitrator has usurped the expert’s role? Does the arbitrator’s asking of leading questions prove that they descended into the arena to elicit evidence to validate their views?
The Singapore High Court (“Court”) answered these questions in the negative, dismissing the applicant’s application to set aside the arbitral award. In doing so, the Court considered the high threshold to be met, emphasising that any breach, even if proven, must have caused actual prejudice to the applicant to sustain a setting-aside application.
The respondents were successfully represented by Partner Devathas Satianathan, Senior Associate Walter Yeo, and Associate Sandi Tun of Rajah & Tann Singapore.
For more information, click here to read the full Update.
Visit Arbitration Asia for insights from our thought leaders across Asia concerning arbitration and other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, ranging from legal and case law developments to market updates and many more.
