CMJ & Anor v CML & Anor [2021] SGHC(I) 20 (30 December 2021)

CMJ & Anor v CML & Anor [2021] SGHC(I) 20 (30 December 2021)

The tribunal's refusal to admit additional witness and expert evidence did not amount to a breach of natural justice because the applicant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to present its case, including oral evidence and additional time. The tribunal's procedural decisions were within the range of what a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] SGHC(I) 20
Parties
Plaintiff: CMJ and another; Defendant: CML and another
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
30 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons (arbitration Setting Aside) / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Arbitral Awards, Breach of Natural Justice, Right to Be Heard, Procedural Fairness, International Arbitration, UNCITRAL Model Law
Arbitration Commercial Law Natural Justice Setting Aside Arbitral Awards Breach of Natural Justice Right to Be Heard Procedural Fairness International Arbitration +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CMJ and another

Plaintiff

CML and another

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons (arbitration Setting Aside) / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral tribunal breached natural justice by refusing to admit certain witness statements and expert evidence
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal failed to apply its mind to essential issues raised by the applicant
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was denied a fair opportunity to present its case

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal's refusal to admit additional witness and expert evidence did not amount to a breach of natural justice because the applicant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to present its case, including oral evidence and additional time. The tribunal's procedural decisions were within the range of what a reasonable and fair-minded tribunal might have done. Even if there was any breach, the excluded evidence would not have made a real difference to the outcome. The tribunal did not fail to consider essential issues, as it addressed the applicant's arguments regarding the duty to drill for additional gas. There was no real prejudice to the applicant, and the requirements for setting...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application to set aside SIAC Award No 91 of 2020 is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs (unless otherwise specified in the full judgment).