CZT v CZU [2023] SGHC(I) 11 (28 June 2023)

CZT v CZU [2023] SGHC(I) 11 (28 June 2023)

The court held that the confidentiality of arbitral deliberations is a strong policy protected by law and exceptions are only permitted in the rarest and most compelling cases, such as credible allegations of corruption or exclusion from deliberations. The plaintiff's allegations, based largely on the dissenting arbitrator's subjective views and without substantiated factual basis, did not meet this threshold. The documents sought were either irrelevant, could be determined from the arbitration record, or were insufficiently particularised. Therefore, the applications for production of the records of deliberations were dismissed.

Citation
[2023] SGHC(I) 11
Parties
Plaintiff: CZT; Defendant: CZU; Non Party (arbitrator): Prof Douglas Jones AO; Non Party (arbitrator): Prof Keechang Kim; Non Party (arbitrator): Dr Philipp Habegger
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
28 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons (production Applications in Arbitration Setting Aside Proceedings) / Interlocutory Application for Production of Documents (records of Deliberations) Prior to Hearing of Setting Aside Application
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Production of Documents, Confidentiality of Arbitral Deliberations, Setting Aside Arbitral Awards, Natural Justice, Impartiality of Arbitrators
Civil Procedure Arbitration Production of Documents Confidentiality of Arbitral Deliberations Setting Aside Arbitral Awards Natural Justice Impartiality of Arbitrators

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CZT

Plaintiff

CZU

Defendant

Prof Douglas Jones AO

Non Party (arbitrator)

Prof Keechang Kim

Non Party (arbitrator)

Dr Philipp Habegger

Non Party (arbitrator)

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons (production Applications in Arbitration Setting Aside Proceedings) / Interlocutory Application for Production of Documents (records of Deliberations) Prior to Hearing of Setting Aside Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When can arbitrators be ordered to produce their records of deliberations as evidence in aid of applications to set aside their awards?
  2. 2 Whether the confidentiality of arbitral deliberations is subject to exceptions and, if so, in what circumstances?
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's application for production of records of deliberations meets the threshold for such an exception?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the confidentiality of arbitral deliberations is a strong policy protected by law and exceptions are only permitted in the rarest and most compelling cases, such as credible allegations of corruption or exclusion from deliberations. The plaintiff's allegations, based largely on the dissenting arbitrator's subjective views and without substantiated factual basis, did not meet this threshold. The documents sought were either irrelevant, could be determined from the arbitration record, or were insufficiently particularised. Therefore, the applications for production of the records of deliberations were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • Summonses Nos 788, 789, and 790 of 2023 for production of arbitrators' records of deliberations are dismissed.
  • Plaintiff to proceed with setting aside application on the basis of the arbitration record only.