DHZ v DHY

[2024] SGHC 236 High Court (General Division) 16 September 2024 • HC/OA 102/2024|HC/OA 21/2024 ( HC/SUM 288/2024 ) • 48 min read

9 cases cited (8 SG, 1 foreign) Cited by 1 case

Catchwords

Arbitration — Award — Recourse against award — Setting aside

Practice Areas

Arbitration

Judges (1)

Chua Lee Ming Delivered

Counsel (6)

Bird & Bird ATMD LLP Firm UniLegal LLC Firm Balasubramaniam Ernest Yogarajah Counsel Defendant Lee Wei Han Shaun Counsel Claimant Mark Ng Counsel Claimant Nakul Dewan Counsel Claimant

Parties (2)

DHY Respondent DHZ Applicant

Case Significance

DHZ v DHY and another matter [2024] SGHC 236 was decided by Chua Lee Ming J in the General Division of the High Court on 16 September 2024, with judgment reserved after a hearing on 25 July 2024. The proceedings comprised Originating Application No 102 of 2024 (OA 102) and Originating Application No 21 of 2024 (Summons No 288 of 2024) (SUM 288). In OA 102, the applicant DHZ applied to set aside specific findings made against it in an arbitral award issued on 31 October 2023, in an arbitration commenced by DHY in Singapore and conducted under the Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (6th Edition, 1 August 2016).

The catchwords identify the case as concerning arbitration and recourse against an award by way of setting aside. In OA 21, DHY had obtained leave of court to enforce the Award and enter judgment in its terms (the Enforcement Order); DHZ applied by SUM 288 to stay the Enforcement Order pending the final determination of OA 102 and to set it aside should OA 102 succeed. The court heard SUM 288 and OA 102 together, referring throughout to DHY as claimant and DHZ as respondent in the arbitration. The judgment referred to the Arbitration Act. DHY was represented by Bird & Bird ATMD LLP, including Lee Wei Han Shaun, Mark Ng and Nakul Dewan, while DHZ was represented by UniLegal LLC, including Balasubramaniam Ernest Yogarajah.

Summary

These proceedings concerned a challenge by DHZ to certain findings in an arbitral award issued in 2023 following an arbitration commenced by DHY in Singapore under the SIAC Rules, arising from disputes over four contracts under which DHZ had engaged DHY as a supplier of goods and services for a project. DHZ applied to set aside specific findings in the award, while DHY had obtained leave to enforce the award, and DHZ applied to stay and set aside the enforcement order in the event it succeeded. The High Court (Chua Lee Ming J) dismissed the challenge, observing that the complaints amounted to assertions that the arbitrator was wrong, that parties to arbitration agree to be bound by the tribunal's findings even if shown to be wrong, and that there is no right of appeal against an arbitral award; costs were to be heard separately.

What did DHZ seek in DHZ v DHY [2024] SGHC 236?

In Originating Application No 102 of 2024, DHZ applied to set aside specific findings made against it in an arbitral award issued on 31 October 2023 under the SIAC Rules. DHZ also sought, in SUM 288, to stay and set aside an enforcement order obtained by DHY.

Under which arbitration rules was the award in DHZ v DHY [2024] SGHC 236 made?

The arbitral award challenged in DHZ v DHY, issued on 31 October 2023, arose from an arbitration commenced by DHY in Singapore and conducted under the Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (6th Edition, 1 August 2016), as recorded by Chua Lee Ming J.