Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

(8) annulment of award (grounds for setting aside (arbi didn't have…

- - - - Art 34.2(a)(ii) ”the party… was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case.”
        
        Arbitrators careful about giving every party the opportunity to say their piece. Just so they don’t expose themselves to the risk of G4. (even in cross examining … reluctant to cut short. Arbitral proceedings may ironically become longer) - but its hard to prove anyway
      - Soh Beng Tee & Co Pte Ltd v Fairmount Development Pte Ltd [2007] SGCA 28 (CA, Sing), per V K Rajah JA at [65(a)].
        Facts: Arbitration seated in Singapore. 44-day hearing arising out of condominium project in which Fairmount employed SBT as main contractor. SBT failed to complete on time and claim brought to terminate contract and claim damages for delay. The arbitrator resolved that SBT were entitled to a reasonable amount of time to complete and set “time at large”. (party has a reasonable period of time to remedy the delay) Fairmont argued that the issue of whether time was at large had not been canvassed before the arbitrator and so they had been unfairly deprived of the opportunity to make submissions on it.
        
        Held: Dismissing Fairmont’s challenge, the issue was effectively live and arose out of the same factual “building blocks” in play throughout the proceedings. Excellent summary of principles at [64].
        “The best rule of thumb to adopt is to treat the parties equally and allow them reasonable opportunities to present their cases as well as to respond.”
        
        Para 64 is very clearly discussed
    - - Art 34.2(a)(iv) “…the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, unless such agreement was in conflict with a provision of this Law from which the parties cannot derogate, or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with this Law.”
        
        Submission agreements are often detailed and will have clear procedural processe put in place. Or parties could incorporate rules ie lcia or uncitral. If arbitrator just ignores that and creates his own procedure that parties did not agree to … can set aside
        
        “Soh Beng Tee & Co Pte Ltd v Fairmount Development Pte Ltd [2007] SGCA 28 (CA, Sing), per V K Rajah JA at [65(a), (d)].
        An arbitrator should not base his decision(s) on matters not submitted or argued before him… Arbitrators who exercise unreasonable initiative without the parties’ involvement may attract serious and sustainable challenges... [But] there must be a real basis for alleging that the arbitrator has conducted the arbitral process either irrationally or capriciously.”
        
        Small deviations from process won't cut it.
  - - - Ground 6 – non-arbitrable Art 34.2(b)(i) ML
        “the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law of this State.”
        
        Subject matter is non=arbitrable. There are some disputes that by law are not capable of being resolved by arbitration ie family law, insolvency, historical law. If an arbitrator goes on to do so, that arbitral award will be liable to be set aside
      - Ground 7 – public policy - Art 34.2(b)(ii) ML
        
        “the award is in conflict with the public policy of this State.”
        
        UNCITRAL: 2012 Digest, p 160 “the public policy defence should be applied only if: (1) a fundamental principle of the law or morality or justice was violated; (2) the award fundamentally offended the most basic and explicit principles of justice and fairness or showed intolerable ignorance or corruption on the part of the arbitral tribunal; or (3) the award was in conflict with a principle concerned with the very foundations of public and economic life.”
        
        Arbitral law .. Although leaving up w much to party autonomy and consent, there is an irreducable core (concerned w fairness and natural justice - fair process) that can set aside …….