Apparent Bias and Prejudgment: Singapore International Commercial Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award in DOI v DOJ [2025] SGHC(I) 15

In a significant ruling by the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC), DOI v DOJ [2025] SGHC(I) 15, Justice Roger Giles IJ addressed vital legal principles surrounding natural justice and apparent bias in international arbitration. The decision underscores Singapore’s commitment to upholding procedural fairness in its position as a leading arbitration hub.

Background

The case stemmed from a dispute under a Singapore-seated ICC arbitration, involving a contract (CTP-11) between an Indian special purpose vehicle (the claimant) and a consortium including Japanese and Indian companies (the defendants). The defendants claimed compensation under Clause 13.7 of the FIDIC-based contract, citing a 2017 increase in Indian minimum wages as a “change in law” warranting contract price adjustments.

The Arbitration and Award

A three-member arbitral tribunal—comprising two party-appointed arbitrators and a presiding arbitrator—issued an award favoring the defendants. However, the claimant sought to set aside this award on multiple grounds, including:

1. Breach of natural justice (s 24(b) of the IAA)
2. Inability to present its case (UNCITRAL Model Law, Art 34(2)(a)(ii))
3. Procedural irregularity (Art 34(2)(a)(iv))
4. Conflict with Singapore public policy (Art 34(2)(b)(ii))

Central to the claimant’s complaint was Ground 1: prejudgment and apparent bias, reflected in extensive copying from earlier arbitral awards involving similar parties, contracts, and issues.

The Court’s Findings

Justice Giles IJ found that the tribunal, particularly the majority (Judge C and Judge A), had engaged in substantial “cut-and-paste” reasoning from earlier related awards—especially the CTP-13 Award, which had already been set aside in DJO v DJP [2024] SGHC(I) 24.

Notably:

• 157 out of 176 paragraphs of substantive reasoning were replicated.
• The tribunal referred to incorrect contractual provisions, not applicable in the CTP-11 contract.
• The award reproduced arguments and authorities not raised by parties during the arbitration.
• Decisions on interest and costs were made by applying Indian law despite the arbitration being seated in Singapore—a jurisdictional error similarly copied from the CTP-13 Award.

These errors were not dismissed as mere editorial oversight. The court emphasized that extensive reproduction of reasoning without engagement with the specific facts and arguments of the case demonstrated a closed mind, thus violating the principles of a fair hearing and independent adjudication.

No Waiver by the Claimant

The defendants argued that the claimant had waived its right to challenge the award by not raising objections during the proceedings. However, the court held that the claimant could not have reasonably known about the extent of the tribunal’s prejudgment until the award was published.

Conclusion

The SICC set aside the award on the ground of apparent bias and breach of natural justice, reiterating that arbitrators must evaluate each dispute independently, even when issues and facts overlap with past matters. The decision reinforces Singapore’s firm stance on ensuring arbitral integrity and procedural fairness.

For practitioners and arbitration users, this case is a potent reminder that while efficiency is valued, it must never come at the cost of fair adjudication and impartiality.

---

Also Read:

• Senior Legal Counsel at Vahura
• Kochhar & Co. Dispute Resolution Hiring (June 2025 | Delhi)
• Legal Internship at Saraf and Partners, Delhi
• Internship at Advocate Kuber Hooda & Associates (Online/Offline)
• AK & Partners Internship Procedure 2025, New Delhi
• Internship at Vinod Kothari & Company (Rolling)
• Legal Savvy Internship (Remote, June–August 2025)
• Likhawat 2.0: National Essay Writing Competition 2025