Seacrest Group Ltd v BCPR PTE Ltd & Anor

Seacrest Group Ltd v BCPR PTE Ltd & Anor

The tribunal did not commit a serious irregularity by refusing to consider Seacrest's new exchange rate argument raised for the first time in closing submissions, as this was contrary to clear procedural directions and not pleaded. Seacrest had a reasonable opportunity to apply to amend but did not do so. Even if there was an irregularity, no substantial injustice occurred because the tribunal would have reached the same conclusion, as evidenced by its Article 38 decision.

Parties
Claimant: Seacrest Group Ltd (in Provisional Liquidation in Bermuda); Defendant: BCPR Pte Ltd; Defendant: Bangchak Corporation Public Company Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim (challenge to Award) / Judgment on Challenge Under S.68 Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity (s.68 Arbitration Act 1996), Tribunal's Duty of Fairness (s.33 Arbitration Act 1996), Procedural Fairness, Correction of Award (uncitral Article 38), Substantial Injustice, Functus Officio, Declaratory Relief
Arbitration Commercial Law Serious Irregularity (s.68 Arbitration Act 1996) Tribunal's Duty of Fairness (s.33 Arbitration Act 1996) Procedural Fairness Correction of Award (uncitral Article 38) Substantial Injustice Functus Officio +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Seacrest Group Ltd (in Provisional Liquidation in Bermuda)

Claimant

BCPR Pte Ltd

Defendant

Bangchak Corporation Public Company Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim (challenge to Award) / Judgment on Challenge Under S.68 Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tribunal committed a serious irregularity under s.68(2)(a) Arbitration Act 1996 by failing to consider Seacrest's submissions on the exchange rate issue in closing submissions
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal's Article 38 decision refusing correction of the award is binding or has legal effect
  3. 3 Whether any irregularity caused substantial injustice to Seacrest

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal did not commit a serious irregularity by refusing to consider Seacrest's new exchange rate argument raised for the first time in closing submissions, as this was contrary to clear procedural directions and not pleaded. Seacrest had a reasonable opportunity to apply to amend but did not do so. Even if there was an irregularity, no substantial injustice occurred because the tribunal would have reached the same conclusion, as evidenced by its Article 38 decision.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Relief under s.68 Arbitration Act 1996 refused
  • No declaratory relief granted regarding Article 38 decision