Can a court interfere with an administrative decision of an arbitral institution? In this article, we discuss the recent decision of DMZ v DNA [2025] SGHC 31 (“DMZ”) in which the Singapore High Court (“SGHC”) ruled that courts cannot intervene in decisions of the SIAC Registrar (“Registrar”) and reaffirmed the principle of minimal curial intervention…
Can a party refuse to participate in an arbitration, and thereafter challenge the arbitral award on the ground that the arbitrator failed to consider a point which was not put in issue? The Singapore Court of Appeal (“CA”) in DEM v DEL [2025] SGCA 1 (“DEM”) decided in the negative on this novel point of…
In the recent Singapore High Court (“Court”) case of DJA v DJB [2024] SGHCR 10 (“DJA v DJB”), the Court was tasked with determining the novel question of whether the general legal principles for an application for a case management stay apply when an applicant seeks a case management stay of its own application to…
The judgment of the Singapore International Commercial Court (the “Court”) in DJO v DJP and others [2024] SGHC(I) 24 (“DJO”) provides helpful guidance on when an award may be set aside for breach of natural justice. While setting-aside applications do not generally succeed given the well-established principle of minimal curial intervention, the Court undoubtedly reached…
The judgment of the Singapore Court of Appeal (“Court”) in Voltas Ltd v York International Pte Ltd [2024] SGCA 12 (“Voltas v York”) helpfully settles the question of whether or not an arbitrator is able to impliedly reserve his or her jurisdiction after rendering a final award as a matter of Singapore law. Additionally, the…
