Back
Latest News
Case Summary: DBX and Another v DBZ [2023] SGHC(I) 18 SIC/OA 10/2023
SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL COURT
15 November 2023
In a landmark decision by Roger Giles IJ, the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) has rendered a judgment in the case of DBX and Another v DBZ [2023] SGHC(I) 18, dismissing the application to set aside final awards in two Singapore-seated arbitrations.
Background:
- The respondent initiated two arbitrations against the applicants, who are an investment holding company and its sole director, respectively.
- The dispute arose from a margin financing facility provided by the respondent to the first applicant for investment activities.
- The arbitration clauses were invoked based on the terms and conditions incorporated into the margin facility letter and a separate deed of guarantee and indemnity.
- The applicants, failing to participate in the arbitral proceedings, now sought to set aside the awards on various grounds.
- There was no valid arbitration agreement between the first applicant and the respondent:
- No proper notice was given to the applicants regarding the arbitral proceedings:
- The awards violate Singapore’s public policy
- The respondent argued that the respondents did not establish any of the grounds for setting aside the awards and that their application was barred by limitation.[1]
The Court’s Decision:
- Even Considering the tribunal's corrections made on its initiative, the application was deemed to be brought out of time.[2] Although the awards were initially passed on 18 February 2023 and corrected and received by the applicants on 6 March 2023 ‘the corrections did not affect the commencement’[3] of the limitation period.
- The court upheld the validity of the arbitration agreement, rejecting the applicant's argument that the arbitration clause was not incorporated into the margin facility letter.
- Proper notice of the arbitral proceedings was given, and the applicants chose not to participate, failing to rebut the deemed service as per the Model Law.[4]
- The court determined that the awards did not violate public policy, even if the provision of the margin financing facility might be illegal in Hong Kong.
- Consequently, the court dismissed the application, affirming the validity of the awards.
[1] Article 34, UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, 1985, With amendments as adopted in 2006: The limitation period for application for the setting aside of an award is three months.
[2] In the present case at para. 45
[3] Roger Giles IJ at para. 59
[4] Model Law, Op cit. Article 3: Receipt of Written Communication
- The correction of awards does not affect their limitation period.
- In Singapore, the awards did not violate public policy, even if the provision of the margin financing facility might be illegal in Hong Kong.
- Proper notice was given to the parties in accordance with the Model Law and they chose not to participate.
