It is a moot point to say that Singapore is one of the most arbitration-friendly jurisdictions in the world. The Singapore courts have, on numerous occasions, upheld key principles such as freedom of contract, party autonomy, and the New York Convention (1958). It is also well established that Singapore’s judiciary adheres to a policy of minimal curial intervention and upholding the finality of the arbitral process to the greatest extent (DJP and others v DJO [2025] SGCA(I) 2 at [86]).
Notwithstanding the above, the recent Court of Appeal decision in DJP and others v DJO marks a significant moment in reaffirming the foundational principles that underpin international arbitration—particularly impartiality, procedural fairness, and the duty to render decisions based solely on the record before the tribunal. These elements of natural justice are embedded in section 24(b) of the Singapore International Arbitration Act 1994 (2020 Rev Ed).
The case concerned an arbitration relating to a rail project, conducted under the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and seated in Singapore. Central to the dispute was the troubling discovery that at least 212 out of 451 paragraphs in the arbitral award were lifted almost verbatim from earlier decisions issued by the same presiding arbitrator in parallel arbitrations involving the same respondent. This raised a red flag—not merely due to the act of copying per se (which, on its own, is not necessarily grounds for setting aside an award), but more crucially for what it signified: a potential failure by the tribunal to properly consider the distinct arguments and evidence presented in the case at hand. In essence, the question arose as to whether the tribunal had genuinely applied its mind to the dispute, or conversely, had approached it with a closed mind and prejudged the matter.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the Singapore International Commercial Court’s decision to set aside the award, holding that even perceived shortcuts in the drafting process can amount to a breach of natural justice. Arbitrators must not only be impartial—they must be seen to act impartially. This judgment sends a strong message that efficiency cannot come at the expense of fairness. Even where factual similarities exist between cases, tribunals are duty-bound to assess each dispute independently and to disclose any material reuse or reliance on previous decisions.
In an unusual move, the Court of Appeal—which in this case included the Chief Justice of Singapore and Lord Neuberger as an International Judge—opted to name the members of the tribunal. This underscores the seriousness of the matter and signals that, despite its general reluctance to interfere in arbitral proceedings, the Singapore judiciary will act decisively when the integrity of the process is at stake.
This ruling carries significant implications for practitioners, arbitrators, and arbitral institutions. It serves as a compelling reminder that procedural integrity and transparency are non-negotiable pillars of credible dispute resolution. Whether acting as counsel, arbitrator, or party to a contract, this case reinforces the imperative to vigilantly safeguard the fairness and legitimacy of the arbitral process—especially when the stakes are high and the risk of “institutional familiarity” with parties or issues looms large.