BXS v BXT [2019] SGHC(I) 10 (20 June 2019)

BXS v BXT [2019] SGHC(I) 10 (20 June 2019)

The court held that the three-month time limit under Article 34(3) of the UNCITRAL Model Law for setting aside an arbitral award is absolute and not extendable by the court. The Plaintiff's application to set aside the award was out of time and must be struck out. The grounds advanced for setting aside the award were also without merit, as the arbitration was conducted in accordance with the applicable SIAC Rules and the award was not contrary to the arbitration agreement, the terms of submission, or Singapore public policy.

Citation
[2019] SGHC(I) 10
Parties
Plaintiff: BXS; Defendant: BXT
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
20 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons / Judgment on Applications to Set Aside Arbitral Award and to Strike Out Setting Aside Application
Outcome
Plaintiff's application for extension of time and to set aside the award dismissed; Defendant's application to strike out the setting aside application allowed.
Legal Topics
Recourse Against Arbitral Award, Setting Aside Arbitral Award, Time Limits for Setting Aside, Interpretation of Arbitration Rules, Public Policy in Arbitration
Arbitration Civil Procedure Recourse Against Arbitral Award Setting Aside Arbitral Award Time Limits for Setting Aside Interpretation of Arbitration Rules 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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BXS

Plaintiff

BXT

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons / Judgment on Applications to Set Aside Arbitral Award and to Strike Out Setting Aside Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the three-month time limit under Article 34(3) of the UNCITRAL Model Law for setting aside an arbitral award is extendable by the court
  2. 2 Whether the award should be set aside for being made by a sole arbitrator instead of a panel of three as stipulated in the arbitration agreement
  3. 3 Whether the award dealt with matters outside the terms of submission to arbitration

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the three-month time limit under Article 34(3) of the UNCITRAL Model Law for setting aside an arbitral award is absolute and not extendable by the court. The Plaintiff's application to set aside the award was out of time and must be struck out. The grounds advanced for setting aside the award were also without merit, as the arbitration was conducted in accordance with the applicable SIAC Rules and the award was not contrary to the arbitration agreement, the terms of submission, or Singapore public policy.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application for extension of time and to set aside the award dismissed; Defendant's application to strike out the setting aside application allowed.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's application for extension of time and to set aside the award is dismissed.
  • Defendant's application to strike out the Plaintiff's setting aside application is allowed.