DPT & Anor v DPV & Ors [2025] SGHC(I) 29 (05 December 2025)

DPT & Anor v DPV & Ors [2025] SGHC(I) 29 (05 December 2025)

The applicants failed to establish any breach of natural justice. The tribunal's valuation approach was within the scope of the parties' submissions and evidence, or at minimum, the applicants had reasonable notice and opportunity to address it. The tribunal did not fail to consider responsive evidence; there was no clear and virtually inescapable inference of such failure, nor any real prejudice demonstrated.

Citation
[2025] SGHC(I) 29
Parties
Applicant: DPT; Applicant: DPU; Respondent: DPV; Respondent: DPW; Respondent: DPX
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
05 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Originating Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Partial Award
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Arbitral Award, Breach of Natural Justice, Minority Oppression, Shareholder Disputes, Valuation of Shares
Arbitration Company Law Setting Aside Arbitral Award Breach of Natural Justice Minority Oppression Shareholder Disputes Valuation of Shares

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DPT

Applicant

DPU

Applicant

DPV

Respondent

DPW

Respondent

DPX

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Originating Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Partial Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral tribunal breached the rules of natural justice in determining the buyout price for the Founders' shares
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal failed to consider responsive evidence in breach of natural justice

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to establish any breach of natural justice. The tribunal's valuation approach was within the scope of the parties' submissions and evidence, or at minimum, the applicants had reasonable notice and opportunity to address it. The tribunal did not fail to consider responsive evidence; there was no clear and virtually inescapable inference of such failure, nor any real prejudice demonstrated.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Originating Application No 10 of 2025 is dismissed
  • Costs to be determined separately if not agreed