DTH & Anor v DTF & Ors

Q: Which legislation does [2026] SGHC(I) 5 consider?

The judgment refers to Arbitration Act (Cap 10), Civil Law Act (Cap 43), Companies Act (Cap 50), and International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A), among other provisions. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2026] SGHC(I) 5 Singapore International Commercial Court 2 June 2026 • SIC/OA 23/2025 • 50 min read

19 cases cited (18 SG, 1 foreign)

Catchwords

Arbitration — Award — Recourse against award — Setting aside — Whether tribunal’s decision was not in accordance with the arbitral procedure agreed by the parties Arbitration — Award — Recourse against award — Setting aside — Whether award in conflict with public policy of Singapore under Art 34(2)(b)(ii) UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration — International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2020 Rev Ed)

Practice Areas

Arbitration

Case Significance

DTH and DTI v DTF and others [2026] SGHC(I) 5 is a decision of the Singapore International Commercial Court handed down on 2 June 2026 by S Mohan J, Roger Giles IJ, and Anselmo Reyes IJ (judgment delivered by Roger Giles IJ). The applicants, DTH and DTI, were the successful parties in a Singapore-seated arbitration and sought to set aside portions of the award under Art 34(2)(b)(ii) of the UNCITRAL Model Law as incorporated by the International Arbitration Act. The central question was whether a tribunal's refusal to award costs associated with third-party funding — on the basis that Singapore law did not permit it to do so — could itself be set aside as contrary to Singapore's public policy or as a breach of the agreed arbitral procedure.

The court engaged directly with Singapore's historically resistant stance towards third-party funding, rooted in the doctrines of maintenance and champerty and the principle that justice is not a commodity to be trafficked in. Counsel for the applicants were drawn from Duxton Hill Chambers, Providence Law Asia LLC, and included Nilesh Khetan, Zhuo Jiaxiang, Liang Hanwen Calvin, Yu Kexin, Asiyah binte Ahmad Arif; the respondents were represented by Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP and Sim Chong LLC, including Avinash Vinayak Pradhan, Poon Kin Mun Kelvin, Divyesh Menon, and Sim Chong. The judgment draws on 19 authorities (18 Singapore, 1 foreign) and references four statutes including the International Arbitration Act and the Civil Law Act.

[2026] SGHC(I) 5 explained

DTH & Anor v DTF & Ors ([2026] SGHC(I) 5) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Singapore International Commercial Court on 2 June 2026. It is categorised under Arbitration. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2026] SGHC(I) 5 about?

DTH & Anor v DTF & Ors ([2026] SGHC(I) 5) is a Singapore International Commercial Court decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Arbitration — Award — Recourse against award — Setting aside — Whether tribunal’s decision was not in accordance with the arbitral procedure agreed by the parties” and “Arbitration — Award — Recourse against award — Setting aside — Whether award in conflict with public policy of Singapore under Art 34(2)(b)(ii) UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration — International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2020 Rev Ed)”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2026] SGHC(I) 5 consider?

The judgment refers to Arbitration Act (Cap 10), Civil Law Act (Cap 43), Companies Act (Cap 50), and International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A), among other provisions. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGHC(I) 5 cite?

Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2026] SGHC(I) 1 and [2025] SGHC(I) 29. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.

Summary

SUPREME COURT OF SINGAPORE

2 June 2026

Case summary

DTH and another v DTF and two others [2026] SGHC(I) 5

Singapore International Commercial Court — Originating Application No 23 of 2025

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Decision of S Mohan J, Roger Giles IJ and Anselmo Reyes IJ (grounds of decision delivered by Roger Giles IJ):

Outcome: The Singapore International Commercial Court (“SICC”) dismissed the application to set aside the tribunal’s decision, on the basis that neither ground for setting aside was made out. The tribunal’s refusal to award third-party funding costs neither conflicted with the public policy of Singapore under Article 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Model Law, nor constituted a failure to adhere to the agreed arbitral procedure under Article 34(2)(a)(iv) of the Model Law.

Background

1 This application is a sequel to earlier proceedings in DPT v DPV [2025] SGHC(I) 29. In DPT v DPV, the respondents had applied to set aside the arbitral tribunal’s partial award (“Partial Award”). The Partial Award had found largely in the applicants’ favour on their claims against the respondents for breaches of their shareholder and investment agreements and for minority oppression, and ordered the first respondent to buy out the applicants’ shares for a total of US$14,736,000. The respondents’ application to set aside the Partial Award was dismissed.

2 The present application concerns the tribunal’s costs award (“Costs Award”), specifically the decision of the majority of the tribunal (the “Majority”) to disallow the applicants’ claim for third-party funding costs (“TPF costs”) of approximately US$14.6 million. The applicants had entered into a litigation funding agreement with a funder to finance the arbitration, and the practical consequence of the Majority’s decision on TPF costs was that, after paying the funder, the applicants would be left with almost nothing from their US$14,736,000 buyout award. The Majority’s principal reasons for disallowing the TPF costs were that neither the 2017 legislative amendments under the Civil Law Act 1909 legalising third-party funding, nor the parties’ agreement under Rule 37 of the SIAC Rules, conferred on the tribunal the power to order such recovery.

3 The applicants sought to set aside / remit the TPF decision on two grounds: first, that it conflicts with the public policy of Singapore under Article 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Model Law (the “Public Policy Issue”); and second, that the arbitral procedure adopted by the Majority was not in accordance with the parties’ agreement under Article 34(2)(a)(iv) of the Model Law (the “Arbitral Procedure Issue”).

Decision

4 The Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) dismissed the application on both grounds. On the Public Policy Issue, the applicants were required to identify a specific rule or principle of public policy with which the Costs Award conflicted, and to demonstrate that the conflict met the stringent threshold of “shocking the conscience”, “violating the forum’s most basic notions of morality and justice”, or being “clearly injurious to the public good”. This was additionally not an occasion to review whether the Majority had erred in concluding that it lacked the power to award TPF costs, as the policy of minimal curial intervention meant that even an error of Singapore law would not, without more, render an award contrary to public policy: at [40]–[44].

5 The applicants’ formulation of the applicable public policy, as one of ensuring access to justice for impecunious parties with meritorious claims, was impermissibly narrow in scope. Being confined to a specific class of impecunious arbitrants seeking TPF costs recovery, it could not properly be characterised as “public” policy: at [49] and [52].

6 Additionally, it conflated social policy with public policy in the strict legal sense: [54]. In any event, the SICC found that access to justice was compatible with less than full cost recovery, that the interests of the opposing party also had to be considered, and that Singapore’s own SICC costs regime expressly prohibited the recovery of TPF costs. It was therefore difficult to argue that their irrecoverability could shock the conscience or be injurious to the public good: at [71]–[75].

7 On the Arbitral Procedure Issue, the SICC held that Rule 37 is not procedural in nature. Article 34(2)(a)(iv) is concerned with irregularities in the procedural rules governing how an arbitration is conducted, such as timelines, submission requirements, and notification rules, and cannot be extended to the substance or outcome of an arbitral decision. Rule 37 governs the tribunal’s authority to dispose of costs, not the procedural manner in which it arrives at that disposition. Any error by the Majority in concluding that it lacked power to award TPF costs was therefore an error of substance going to the merits, and not a departure from agreed procedure: at [86] and [90]–[91].

8 In any event, even if Rule 37 were treated as procedural, it was for the Majority to determine what that rule authorised. That determination was not open to curial review unless the construction adopted was simply not open on any view of the text: at [94].

9 Finally, as an additional basis for dismissing the application, the SICC observed that even if a prescribed ground for setting aside had been made out, it retains a residual discretion to decline relief where no prejudice has been sustained. The Majority’s refusal to award TPF costs rested independently on the ground that the litigation funding agreement fell outside the third-party funding regime permitted under the 2017 amendments to the Civil Law Act 1909, such that the applicants would have failed on their TPF costs claim regardless of how the question on power was resolved, and no relief would have been granted in any event: at [99]–[108].

This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court’s judgment. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court. All numbers in bold font and square brackets refer to the corresponding paragraph numbers in the Court’s judgment.

What was the key arbitration issue decided in DTH and another v DTF and others [2026] SGHC(I) 5?

The Singapore International Commercial Court decided on 2 June 2026 whether a tribunal's refusal to award third-party funding costs in a Singapore-seated arbitration could be set aside as contrary to public policy or as a breach of agreed arbitral procedure under the International Arbitration Act.

Can a tribunal's refusal to award third-party funding costs be set aside as contrary to Singapore public policy?

In [2026] SGHC(I) 5, a three-judge panel of the Singapore International Commercial Court addressed this question in proceedings brought by successful arbitrants DTH and DTI, examining Art 34(2)(b)(ii) of the UNCITRAL Model Law and Singapore's historical resistance to third-party funding under the doctrines of maintenance and champerty.

Statutes Cited

Arbitration Act (Cap 10) Cases on this Act →

Civil Law Act (Cap 43) Cases on this Act →

Companies Act (Cap 50) Cases on this Act →

s 216(1)

International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A) Cases on this Act →

s 3

Cases Cited (19)

SG (5)

[2013] SGHC 213 [2017] SGHC 289 [2021] SGHC 114 [2025] SGHC(I) 29 [2026] SGHC(I) 1

SLR (13)

[2007] 1 SLR(R) 597 [2008] 2 SLR(R) 929 [2010] 4 SLR 672 [2011] 4 SLR 305 [2011] 4 SLR 739 [2015] 1 SLR 496 [2015] 4 SLR 597 [2016] 1 SLR 549 [2022] 2 SLR 918 [2022] 4 SLR 198 [2023] 1 SLR 55 [2023] 1 SLR 96 [2023] 4 SLR 77

HK (1)

[2023] HKCFI 3366

Referenced in

Statutes interpreted in this judgment

Arbitration Act Civil Law Act Companies Act International Arbitration Act

Legal concepts & references

Arbitration — Award

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.

Read on eLitigation

Source: eLitigation ([2026] SGHC(I) 5)