BYL & Anor v BYN [2020] SGHC(I) 6 (3 March 2020)

BYL & Anor v BYN [2020] SGHC(I) 6 (3 March 2020)

The award was not incomplete or lacking finality; it provided cumulative and alternative reliefs to prevent double recovery and ensure enforceability, as permitted by the contract and arbitration law. The tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction or violate public policy. The arbitrator's co-counsel relationship did not give rise to apparent bias as there was no substantive contact with counsel involved in the arbitration before the award was issued, and the objective test for reasonable suspicion of bias was not met.

Citation
[2020] SGHC(I) 6
Parties
Promoter / Plaintiff: BYL; Company / Plaintiff: BYM; Investor / Defendant: BYN
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
03 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons (setting Aside Arbitral Award) / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Partial Arbitral Award
Outcome
Application to set aside the arbitral award dismissed.
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Arbitral Awards, Bias and Impartiality of Arbitrators, Put Options in Shareholder Agreements, Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, Public Policy in Arbitration
Arbitration Commercial Law Setting Aside Arbitral Awards Bias and Impartiality of Arbitrators Put Options in Shareholder Agreements Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Public Policy in Arbitration

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BYL

Promoter / Plaintiff

BYM

Company / Plaintiff

BYN

Investor / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons (setting Aside Arbitral Award) / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Partial Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral award was incomplete or lacked finality due to alternative reliefs under put options
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction or violated public policy by making contingent awards
  3. 3 Whether there was apparent bias due to an arbitrator's co-counsel relationship with a party's legal representatives during the award drafting

Ratio Decidendi

The award was not incomplete or lacking finality; it provided cumulative and alternative reliefs to prevent double recovery and ensure enforceability, as permitted by the contract and arbitration law. The tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction or violate public policy. The arbitrator's co-counsel relationship did not give rise to apparent bias as there was no substantive contact with counsel involved in the arbitration before the award was issued, and the objective test for reasonable suspicion of bias was not met.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside the arbitral award dismissed.

Orders

  • The application to set aside the ICC Partial Award dated 30 April 2019 is dismissed.
  • Costs and other reserved matters remain to be determined in the ongoing arbitration.