{"id":289088,"date":"2026-02-05T16:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-02-05T15:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/?p=289088"},"modified":"2026-05-13T17:30:16","modified_gmt":"2026-05-13T15:30:16","slug":"no-second-guessing-on-valuation-sicc-rejects-natural-justice-challenge-to-partial-award","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/2026\/02\/05\/no-second-guessing-on-valuation-sicc-rejects-natural-justice-challenge-to-partial-award\/","title":{"rendered":"No Second Guessing on Valuation: SICC Rejects Natural Justice Challenge to Partial Award"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Singapore International Commercial Court,&nbsp;<em>DPT and another v DPU and others&nbsp;<\/em>[2025] SGHC(I) 29<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>THE AUTHOR<\/strong>:<br><strong>Mohamed M. M.&nbsp;Hamaima<\/strong>,&nbsp;Trainee Lawyer &amp; LL.M. Graduate from&nbsp;<strong>Queen Mary University of London<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-text-align-center wp-block-paragraph\"><em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/paris-baby-arbitration\/posts\/?feedView=all\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Paris Baby Arbitration (&#8220;PBA&#8221;)<\/a> is building a strong community of future arbitration professionals linked to Paris and beyond. Partnering with\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Daily Jus<\/a>, PBA shares sharp, bilingual analyses and fresh perspectives on the developments shaping the arbitration field, making it more accessible to students and young practitioners worldwide.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-atbs-tabs atbs-tabs-0b15557f atbs-tabs-fdb8ee48 atbs-tabs-c43cdb4e atbs-tabs-3fcd3af4 atbs-tabs-e9190e75 atbs-tabs-cc044763 atbs-tabs-e5227453 atbs-tabs-28ee9d1e atbs-tabs-0f9baf1e atbs-tabs-089ca7bc atbs-tabs-d3e0c47d atbs-tabs-6f4e5034 atbs-tabs-edc4d811 atbs-tabs-9f79343d atbs-tabs-e29c0043 atbs-tabs-3388e41b atbs-tabs-eacf5739 atbs-tabs-1640bf1d atbs-tabs-f4af3a56 atbs-tabs-873c354e atbs-tabs-83bd85a4 atbs-tabs-62375cc4 atbs-tabs-5956dcf8\"><div class=\"tabs-container\"><div class=\"tabs-nav\"><ul class=\"tabs-titles\"><li class=\"tab-title icon_left\" data-title-tab-id=\"1\" role=\"button\"><span class=\"tab-title-text\">English<\/span><\/li><li class=\"tab-title icon_left\" data-title-tab-id=\"2\" role=\"button\"><span class=\"tab-title-text\">French<\/span><\/li><\/ul><\/div><div class=\"tabs-content\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-atbs-tab\"><div class=\"single-tab\" data-tab-id=\"1\" data-tab-parent-id=\"atbs-tabs-0b15557f\">\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">By a&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-dpv-dpw-and-dpx-v-dpt-and-dpu-judgment-of-the-singapore-international-commercial-court-2025-sghc-i-29-monday-1st-december-2025\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">judgment dated 15 December 2025, [2025] SGHC(I) 29<\/a>, delivered by S Mohan J (with Roger Giles IJ and Anselmo Reyes IJ), the Singapore International Commercial Court (\u201c<strong>SICC<\/strong>\u201d) dismissed an application to set aside a partial arbitral award rendered in a&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/institution\/en-siac-singapore-international-arbitration-centre\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Singapore International Arbitration Centre<\/a>&nbsp;(\u201c<strong>SIAC<\/strong>\u201d) arbitration. The application (SIC\/OA 10\/2025) was brought on two alternative grounds: firstly, that the applicants were unable to present their case under&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/rule\/en-uncitral-united-nations-commission-on-international-trade-law-model-law-on-international-commercial-arbitration-1985-uncitral-model-law-on-international-commercial-arbitration-1985-friday-21st-june-1985#art_28059\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Article 34(2)(a)(ii) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985<\/a>, read with s 3 of the International Arbitration Act 1994 (2020 Rev Ed); and secondly, that there had been a breach of the rules of natural justice within the meaning of s 24(b) of the same Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The applicants in the setting-aside proceedings were DPT and DPU, sister companies within the same corporate group. They had been the respondents in the underlying arbitral proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">DPT and DPU were majority shareholders and investors in DPX, holding an initial 83.33% ownership stake. Established in 2017, DPX is a financial technology joint venture primarily engaged in providing an open-loop e-wallet payment solution. DPT and DPU were parties to DPX\u2019s governing Shareholders\u2019 Agreement (\u201c<strong>SHA<\/strong>\u201d) and Investment Agreement (\u201c<strong>IA<\/strong>\u201d), pursuant to which they provided funding via twelve convertible loan notes (\u201c<strong>CLNs<\/strong>\u201d) entered into between August 2018 and August 2020. In May 2021, the CLNs were converted into equity, increasing the applicants\u2019 shareholding in DPX to 99.6%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The respondents in the setting-aside application were DPV and DPW, the founders and minority shareholders of DPX, who held senior management positions within the company. DPV served as Group Chief Executive Officer, while DPW was Head of Business Planning and Intelligence and Chief Strategy Officer. In the arbitration, the founders advanced claims against the applicants and DPX for breaches of the SHA and IA, and against the applicants for minority oppression under s 216(1) of the Companies Act 1967 (2020 Rev Ed). They sought,&nbsp;<em>inter alia<\/em>, declarations of breach, relief in respect of the CLN share issuance, a buyout order, and damages in the alternative. DPX was named as a respondent in the proceedings in a nominal capacity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The dispute was referred to arbitration in November 2021 and was administered by SIAC before a three-member tribunal. The applicants denied the founders\u2019 claims, contending that the SHA and IA had been validly terminated, and counterclaimed for malicious falsehood and costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In a Partial Award issued in December 2024, the tribunal held that the SHA and IA had not been validly terminated and that the applicants had breached both agreements. It further found that the applicants\u2019 conduct amounted to minority oppression. In relation to the CLNs, the tribunal declared the share issuance null and void as against the founders and ordered a buyout of the founders\u2019 shareholding in DPX.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The tribunal fixed 31 December 2021 as the valuation date and valued DPX at USD 120 million. It determined that the founders were entitled to 12.28% of the company\u2019s value, resulting in a buyout price of USD 14,736,000. The award was not unanimous, with a dissenting arbitrator disagreeing with the valuation and buyout methodology adopted by the majority.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Following the Partial Award, DPT and DPU applied to the SICC to set aside the award on the grounds of breach of natural justice. Two complaints were advanced. First, in what was termed the \u201cBuyout Issue,\u201d the applicants argued that the tribunal had adopted a valuation methodology that had not been pleaded. A methodology that labelled the CLNs \u201cworthless as debt\u201d and led to the tribunal\u2019s conclusion that there was no difference between pre- and post-conversion valuations, without giving the applicants an opportunity to be heard.&nbsp; Secondly, the applicants contended that the tribunal failed to consider material responsive evidence filed in response to subpoenaed witnesses, amounting to&nbsp;<em>infra petita<\/em>. The founders opposed the application.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court identified two issues, both concerning the fair hearing rule:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Whether the tribunal\u2019s adoption of the buyout valuation methodology breached the fair hearing rule; and<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whether the tribunal failed to consider material responsive evidence, amounting to&nbsp;<em>infra petita<\/em>.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In citing the fair hearing rule as set out in&nbsp;<em>BTN v BTP,&nbsp;<\/em>[2021] 1 SLR 276, and&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-soh-beng-tee-co-pte-ltd-v-fairmount-development-pte-ltd-judgment-of-the-court-of-appeal-of-singapore-2007-sgca-28-wednesday-9th-may-2007#decision_42678\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\"><em>Soh Beng Tee &amp; Co Pte Ltd v Fairmount Development Pte Ltd,<\/em>&nbsp;[2007] 3 SLR(R) 86<\/a>,&nbsp; the SICC reaffirmed that an arbitral award may be set aside for breach of natural justice only where the applicant shows a denial of a reasonable opportunity to present its case and that such breach caused prejudice to the applicant\u2019s rights. The court further held, per&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-bzv-v-bzw-and-bzx-judgment-of-the-court-of-appeal-of-singapore-2022-sgca-1-wednesday-12th-january-2022\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\"><em>BZW v BZV,&nbsp;<\/em>[2022] 1 SLR 1080<\/a>, that the fair hearing rule does not require a tribunal to decide matters solely in the precise manner advanced by the parties, so long as its reasoning bears a sufficient&nbsp;<em>nexus&nbsp;<\/em>to the parties\u2019 submissions, consistent with the chain of reasoning doctrine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Regarding the&nbsp;<em>infra petita&nbsp;<\/em>challenge, the court followed the rationale in&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-dku-v-dkt-decision-of-the-court-of-appeal-of-singapore-2025-sgca-23-wednesday-21st-may-2025\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\"><em>DKT v DKU,&nbsp;<\/em>[2025] 1 SLR 806<\/a>, which held that for a successful challenge, the applicant must demonstrate that the tribunal failed to consider an issue essential to the resolution of the dispute, and that such inference is clear and virtually inescapable. Relying on&nbsp;<em>ASG v ASH,&nbsp;<\/em>[2016] 5 SLR 54<em>,&nbsp;<\/em>and&nbsp;<em>DFI v DFJ,&nbsp;<\/em>[2024] SGHC(I) 4, the court confirmed that this requirement of a clear and irrevocable inference also applies to a tribunal\u2019s alleged failure to consider material responsive evidence. The applicant bears the burden of proving that relevant and material evidence was disregarded by the tribunal in reaching its ruling.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court dismissed the setting-aside application in its entirety. With respect to the buyout issue, it held that the tribunal was not restricted to adopting a valuation methodology explicitly proposed by the parties. Its adoption of a third valuation methodology did not constitute a breach of natural justice. The court further cited&nbsp;<em>Hii Yii Ann v Tiong Thai King,&nbsp;<\/em>[2024] 6 SLR&nbsp; 96, confirming that claimants are not expected to delve into precise quantification in relation to damages, or in this case, buyout order valuation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Regarding the responsive evidence issue, the court rejected the&nbsp;<em>infra petita&nbsp;<\/em>challenge. It held that the requirements set out in&nbsp;<em>DKT&nbsp;<\/em>and&nbsp;<em>ASG&nbsp;<\/em>for a successful challenge in relation to material evidence were not met. Citing&nbsp;<em>Glaziers Engineering Pte Ltd v WCS Engineering Construction Pte Ltd,&nbsp;<\/em>[2018] 2 SLR 1311, the court explained that even if the evidence in question was material, its omission does not automatically constitute non consideration. The applicant must demonstrate that the tribunal failed to consider the submission rather than simply disregarding it or choosing not to explain itself, in line with&nbsp;<em>CZT v CZU,&nbsp;<\/em>[2024] 3 SLR 169, which confirmed that a tribunal is not obliged to summarize every argument put forward.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The decision reinforces the high threshold for setting aside arbitral awards in Singapore, affirms judicial deference to tribunals in matters of valuation, and confirms that natural justice challenges are not a substitute for an appeal on the merits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"has-text-align-center wp-block-paragraph\">T<em>his article was originally published in the Biberon Newsletter on <em>Wednesday, February 4, 2026,<\/em> with thanks to Paris Baby Arbitration, Jus Mundi &amp; Jus Connect<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-buttons is-content-justification-center is-layout-flex wp-container-core-buttons-is-layout-fe48e5de wp-block-buttons-is-layout-flex\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-button\"><a class=\"wp-block-button__link wp-element-button\" href=\"https:\/\/lnkd.in\/eSUqJpGD\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><strong>Read It<\/strong> <strong>Here<\/strong><\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>ABOUT THE AUTHOR<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Mohamed&nbsp;Hamaima<\/strong>&nbsp;is a trainee lawyer with a background in English common law and international commercial law.&nbsp;He holds an LL.M. in Comparative and International Dispute Resolution from Queen Mary University of London and an LL.B. (Hons) from The University of Central Lancashire Cyprus.&nbsp;Mohamed has trained with Gaillard&nbsp;Banifatemi&nbsp;Shelbaya&nbsp;Disputes in Paris and the Supreme Judicial Council of Libya\u2019s State Litigation Department, working on ICC and ICSID cases.&nbsp;He has&nbsp;participated&nbsp;in the Willem C. Vis Moot, contributed to the Kluwer Arbitration Blog, and writes for the Paris Baby Arbitration \u201cBiberon.\u201d&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">*<em><em>The&nbsp;views&nbsp;and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-atbs-tab\"><div class=\"single-tab\" data-tab-id=\"2\" data-tab-parent-id=\"atbs-tabs-0b15557f\">\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>D\u00e9f\u00e9rence judiciaire en mati\u00e8re d&#8217;\u00e9valuation : la CCIS rejette le recours en annulation pour justice naturelle<\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Cour Commerciale Internationale de Singapour, [2025] SGHC(I) 29,<em>&nbsp;DPT et un autre c. DPU et autres<\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Par un&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-dpv-dpw-and-dpx-v-dpt-and-dpu-judgment-of-the-singapore-international-commercial-court-2025-sghc-i-29-monday-1st-december-2025\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">jugement en date du 15 d\u00e9cembre 2025, [2025] SGHC(I) 29<\/a>, rendu par S Mohan J (avec Roger Giles IJ et Anselmo Reyes IJ), la Cour commerciale internationale de Singapour a rejet\u00e9 une demande d\u2019annulation partielle d\u2019une sentence arbitrale rendue dans le cadre d\u2019un arbitrage administr\u00e9 par le&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/institution\/en-siac-singapore-international-arbitration-centre\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Centre d\u2019arbitrage international de Singapour<\/a>&nbsp;(\u00ab<strong>SIAC<\/strong>\u00bb)&nbsp;. La demande (SIC\/OA 10\/2025) \u00e9tait fond\u00e9e sur deux moyens alternatifs : d\u2019une part, que les demandeurs n\u2019avaient pas \u00e9t\u00e9 en mesure de pr\u00e9senter leur cas en vertu de&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/rule\/en-uncitral-united-nations-commission-on-international-trade-law-model-law-on-international-commercial-arbitration-1985-uncitral-model-law-on-international-commercial-arbitration-1985-friday-21st-june-1985#art_28059\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">l\u2019article 34(2)(a)(ii) de la Loi type de la CNUDCI sur l&#8217;arbitrage commercial international 1985<\/a>, telle qu\u2019incorpor\u00e9e par l\u2019art. 3 de&nbsp;<em>l\u2019International Arbitration Act 1994&nbsp;<\/em>(\u00e9dition r\u00e9vis\u00e9e 2020)<em>&nbsp;<\/em>; d\u2019autre part, qu\u2019il y avait eu violation des r\u00e8gles de justice naturelle au sens de l\u2019art. 24(b)<em>&nbsp;<\/em>de la m\u00eame loi.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Les demandeurs dans la proc\u00e9dure d\u2019annulation \u00e9taient DPT et DPU, soci\u00e9t\u00e9s s\u0153urs appartenant au m\u00eame groupe. Ils avaient \u00e9t\u00e9 les d\u00e9fendeurs dans l\u2019arbitrage initial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">DPT et DPU \u00e9taient actionnaires majoritaires et investisseurs de DPX, d\u00e9tenant initialement 83,33 % du capital. Fond\u00e9e en 2017, DPX est une coentreprise fintech sp\u00e9cialis\u00e9e principalement dans la fourniture d\u2019un moyen de paiement par portefeuille \u00e9lectronique en boucle ouverte. DPT et DPU \u00e9taient parties au PAA (Pacte d\u2019actionnaires) et au CI (Contrat d\u2019investissement) de DPX, dans le cadre desquels ils ont apport\u00e9 des fonds au moyen de douze billets de pr\u00eat convertibles (\u00ab&nbsp;<strong>CLN<\/strong>&nbsp;\u00bb) conclus entre ao\u00fbt 2018 et ao\u00fbt 2020. En mai 2021, les CLN ont \u00e9t\u00e9 convertis en actions, portant la participation des demandeurs dans DPX \u00e0 99,6 %.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Les d\u00e9fendeurs dans la proc\u00e9dure d\u2019annulation \u00e9taient DPV et DPW, fondateurs et actionnaires minoritaires de DPX, occupant des postes de direction au sein de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9. DPV \u00e9tait Directeur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral du groupe, tandis que DPW \u00e9tait responsable de la planification commerciale et de l\u2019intelligence strat\u00e9gique, et Directeur de la strat\u00e9gie. Lors de l\u2019arbitrage, les fondateurs ont pr\u00e9sent\u00e9 des demandes contre les demandeurs et DPX pour violation du PAA et du CI, ainsi que contre les demandeurs pour oppression des minoritaires en vertu de l\u2019art<em>.&nbsp;<\/em>216(1) de la loi singapourienne sur les soci\u00e9t\u00e9s de 1967&nbsp;<em>(Companies Act 1967,&nbsp;<\/em>\u00e9dition r\u00e9vis\u00e9e 2020<em>)<\/em>. Ils sollicitaient, notamment, des d\u00e9clarations de violation, des mesures concernant l\u2019\u00e9mission des actions issues des CLN, une ordonnance de rachat et, subsidiairement, des dommages-int\u00e9r\u00eats. DPX a \u00e9t\u00e9 d\u00e9sign\u00e9e d\u00e9fenderesse dans la proc\u00e9dure d\u2019annulation uniquement \u00e0 titre nominal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Le diff\u00e9rend a \u00e9t\u00e9 soumis \u00e0 l\u2019arbitrage en novembre 2021, administr\u00e9 par le Centre d\u2019arbitrage international de Singapour devant un tribunal de trois membres. Les demandeurs ont contest\u00e9 les demandes des fondateurs, affirmant que le PAA et le CI avaient \u00e9t\u00e9 valablement r\u00e9sili\u00e9s, et ont form\u00e9 une demande reconventionnelle pour diffamation malveillante et remboursement des frais.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Dans une sentence partielle rendue en d\u00e9cembre 2024, le tribunal a jug\u00e9 que le PAA et le CI n\u2019avaient pas \u00e9t\u00e9 valablement r\u00e9sili\u00e9s et que les demandeurs avaient viol\u00e9 les deux accords. Il a en outre conclu que la conduite des demandeurs constituait une oppression des minoritaires. En ce qui concerne les CLN, le tribunal a d\u00e9clar\u00e9 l\u2019\u00e9mission d\u2019actions nulle et non avenue \u00e0 l\u2019encontre des fondateurs et a ordonn\u00e9 le rachat de leurs actions dans DPX.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Le tribunal a fix\u00e9 la date de valorisation au 31 d\u00e9cembre 2021 et a estim\u00e9 la valeur de DPX \u00e0 120 millions USD. Il a d\u00e9termin\u00e9 que les fondateurs avaient droit \u00e0 12,28 % de la valeur de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9, soit un prix de rachat de 14 736 000 USD. La sentence n\u2019\u00e9tait pas unanime : un arbitre dissident n\u2019\u00e9tait pas d\u2019accord avec la m\u00e9thode de valorisation et de rachat adopt\u00e9e par la majorit\u00e9.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Suite \u00e0 la sentence partielle, DPT et DPU ont saisi la Cour commerciale internationale de Singapour pour faire annuler la d\u00e9cision pour violation de la justice naturelle. Deux griefs ont \u00e9t\u00e9 invoqu\u00e9s. Premi\u00e8rement, dans ce qui a \u00e9t\u00e9 appel\u00e9 le \u00ab&nbsp;<em>Buyout Issue<\/em>&nbsp;\u00bb, les demandeurs ont soutenu que le tribunal avait trait\u00e9 les CLN comme \u00ab&nbsp;<em>sans valeur en tant que dette<\/em>&nbsp;\u00bb et, sur cette base, avait conclu qu\u2019il n\u2019y avait aucune diff\u00e9rence entre les valorisations avant et apr\u00e8s conversion, sans leur donner la possibilit\u00e9 de se faire entendre. Deuxi\u00e8mement, les demandeurs ont soutenu que le tribunal n\u2019avait pas pris en compte des preuves mat\u00e9rielles soumises en r\u00e9ponse \u00e0 des t\u00e9moins assign\u00e9s, ce qui constituait une d\u00e9cision&nbsp;<em>infra petita<\/em>. Les fondateurs ont contest\u00e9 la demande.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Le tribunal a identifi\u00e9 deux questions, toutes deux relatives au principe du droit \u00e0 \u00eatre entendu&nbsp;:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>La m\u00e9thodologie de valorisation adopt\u00e9e pour le rachat a-t-elle viol\u00e9 le droit \u00e0 \u00eatre entendu&nbsp;?<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Le tribunal a-t-il omis de consid\u00e9rer des preuves pertinentes, constituant un&nbsp;<em>infra petita&nbsp;<\/em>?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">En se r\u00e9f\u00e9rant au droit \u00e0 \u00eatre entendu tel qu\u2019\u00e9tabli dans&nbsp;<em>BTN v BTP,&nbsp;<\/em>[2021] 1 SLR 276<em>&nbsp;<\/em>et&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-soh-beng-tee-co-pte-ltd-v-fairmount-development-pte-ltd-judgment-of-the-court-of-appeal-of-singapore-2007-sgca-28-wednesday-9th-may-2007#decision_42678\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\"><em>Soh Beng Tee &amp; Co Pte Ltd v Fairmount Development Pte Ltd,&nbsp;<\/em>[2007] 3 SLR(R) 86<\/a>, la Cour commerciale internationale de Singapour a r\u00e9affirm\u00e9 qu\u2019une sentence arbitrale ne peut \u00eatre annul\u00e9e pour violation de la justice naturelle que si le demandeur d\u00e9montre qu\u2019il n\u2019a pas eu une occasion raisonnable de pr\u00e9senter son cas et que cette violation lui a port\u00e9 pr\u00e9judice. La cour a pr\u00e9cis\u00e9, selon&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-bzv-v-bzw-and-bzx-judgment-of-the-court-of-appeal-of-singapore-2022-sgca-1-wednesday-12th-january-2022\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\"><em>BZW v BZV,&nbsp;<\/em>[2022] 1 SLR 1080<\/a>, que le droit \u00e0 \u00eatre entendu n\u2019exige pas qu\u2019un tribunal d\u00e9cide uniquement de la mani\u00e8re exacte propos\u00e9e par les parties, d\u00e8s lors que son raisonnement entretient un lien suffisant avec leurs conclusions, conform\u00e9ment \u00e0 la doctrine de la cha\u00eene de raisonnement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Concernant la contestation pour&nbsp;<em>infra petita<\/em>, la cour a suivi la logique de&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-dku-v-dkt-decision-of-the-court-of-appeal-of-singapore-2025-sgca-23-wednesday-21st-may-2025\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\"><em>DKT v DKU,&nbsp;<\/em>[2025] 1 SLR 806<\/a>, selon laquelle, pour qu\u2019une contestation r\u00e9ussisse, le demandeur doit d\u00e9montrer que le tribunal a omis de consid\u00e9rer une question essentielle \u00e0 la r\u00e9solution du diff\u00e9rend, et que cette omission est \u00e9vidente et pratiquement incontestable. S\u2019appuyant sur&nbsp;<em>ASG v ASH,&nbsp;<\/em>[2016] 5 SLR 54<em>,&nbsp;<\/em>et&nbsp;<em>DFI v DFJ,<\/em>&nbsp;[2024] SGHC(I) 4, la cour a confirm\u00e9 que cette exigence d\u2019une inf\u00e9rence claire et irr\u00e9vocable s\u2019applique \u00e9galement \u00e0 la pr\u00e9tendue omission de prise en compte de preuves pertinentes. Le demandeur a la charge de prouver que des \u00e9l\u00e9ments de preuve pertinents ont \u00e9t\u00e9 ignor\u00e9s par le tribunal dans sa d\u00e9cision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">La cour a rejet\u00e9 l\u2019int\u00e9gralit\u00e9 de la demande d\u2019annulation. En ce qui concerne l\u2019affaire du rachat, elle a jug\u00e9 que le tribunal n\u2019\u00e9tait pas limit\u00e9 \u00e0 adopter uniquement une m\u00e9thodologie de valorisation propos\u00e9e explicitement par les parties. L\u2019adoption d\u2019une troisi\u00e8me m\u00e9thodologie ne constituait pas une violation de la justice naturelle. La cour a \u00e9galement cit\u00e9&nbsp;<em>Hii Yii Ann v Tiong Thai King,&nbsp;<\/em>[2024] 6 SLR 96, confirmant que les demandeurs ne sont pas tenus de proc\u00e9der \u00e0 une quantification pr\u00e9cise des dommages ou, en l\u2019esp\u00e8ce, de la valorisation pour l\u2019ordre de rachat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Concernant la question des preuves, la cour a rejet\u00e9 la contestation pour&nbsp;<em>infra petita<\/em>. Elle a estim\u00e9 que les conditions fix\u00e9es dans&nbsp;<em>DKT&nbsp;<\/em>et&nbsp;<em>ASG&nbsp;<\/em>pour une contestation r\u00e9ussie portant sur des preuves pertinentes n\u2019\u00e9taient pas remplies. Citant&nbsp;<em>Glaziers Engineering Pte Ltd v WCS Engineering Construction Pte Ltd,&nbsp;<\/em>[2018] 2 SLR 1311, la cour a expliqu\u00e9 que m\u00eame si les preuves en question \u00e9taient pertinentes, leur omission ne constitue pas automatiquement un d\u00e9faut de consid\u00e9ration. Le demandeur doit d\u00e9montrer que le tribunal a r\u00e9ellement omis de consid\u00e9rer ces \u00e9l\u00e9ments, plut\u00f4t que de les avoir simplement ignor\u00e9s ou de choisir de ne pas les expliciter, conform\u00e9ment \u00e0&nbsp;<em>CZT v CZU<\/em>, [2024] 3 SLR 169, qui pr\u00e9cise qu\u2019un tribunal n\u2019a pas l\u2019obligation de r\u00e9sumer tous les arguments pr\u00e9sent\u00e9s.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Cette d\u00e9cision confirme le seuil \u00e9lev\u00e9 pour l\u2019annulation des sentences arbitrales \u00e0 Singapour, r\u00e9affirme la d\u00e9f\u00e9rence judiciaire \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9gard des tribunaux en mati\u00e8re de valorisation et \u00e9tablit que les contestations pour violation de la justice naturelle ne constituent pas un substitut \u00e0 un appel sur le fond.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"has-text-align-center wp-block-paragraph\"><em><em>Cet article a \u00e9t\u00e9 initialement publi\u00e9 dans la newsletter Biberon le mercredi 4 f\u00e9vrier, 2026, avec le soutien de Paris Baby Arbitration, Jus Mundi &amp; Jus Connect, et est disponible<\/em><\/em>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-buttons is-content-justification-center is-layout-flex wp-container-core-buttons-is-layout-fe48e5de wp-block-buttons-is-layout-flex\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-button\"><a class=\"wp-block-button__link wp-element-button\" href=\"https:\/\/lnkd.in\/eCMMNMBZ\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><strong>Lire dans le Biberon<\/strong><\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>ABOUT THE AUTHOR<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Mohamed&nbsp;Hamaima<\/strong>&nbsp;is a trainee lawyer with a background in English common law and international commercial law.&nbsp;He holds an LL.M. in Comparative and International Dispute Resolution from Queen Mary University of London and an LL.B. (Hons) from The University of Central Lancashire Cyprus.&nbsp;Mohamed has trained with Gaillard&nbsp;Banifatemi&nbsp;Shelbaya&nbsp;Disputes in Paris and the Supreme Judicial Council of Libya\u2019s State Litigation Department, working on ICC and ICSID cases.&nbsp;He has&nbsp;participated&nbsp;in the Willem C. Vis Moot, contributed to the Kluwer Arbitration Blog, and writes for the Paris Baby Arbitration \u201cBiberon.\u201d&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">*<em><em>Les points de vue et les opinions exprim\u00e9s par les auteurs sont les leurs et ne refl\u00e8tent pas n\u00e9cessairement ceux de leurs organisations, de leurs employeurs ou de Daily Jus, Jus Mundi ou Jus Connect.<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Singapore International Commercial Court upholds arbitral award in USD 14.7M dispute, rejecting natural justice challenge to valuation methodology.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":289104,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jnews-multi-image_gallery":[],"jnews_single_post":{"subtitle":"","format":"standard","video":"","gallery":"","source_name":"","source_url":"","via_name":"","via_url":"","override_template":"0","override":[{"template":"custom","single_blog_custom":"274736","parallax":"1","fullscreen":"1","layout":"right-sidebar","sidebar":"author","second_sidebar":"default-sidebar","sticky_sidebar":"1","share_position":"hide","share_float_style":"share-monocrhome","show_share_counter":"0","show_view_counter":"0","show_featured":"1","show_post_meta":"1","show_post_author":"0","show_post_author_image":"0","show_post_date":"1","post_date_format":"default","post_date_format_custom":"Y\/m\/d","show_post_category":"0","show_post_reading_time":"0","post_reading_time_wpm":"300","show_zoom_button":"0","zoom_button_out_step":"2","zoom_button_in_step":"3","show_post_tag":"0","show_prev_next_post":"0","show_popup_post":"0","number_popup_post":"1","show_author_box":"0","show_post_related":"0","show_inline_post_related":"0"}],"override_image_size":"0","image_override":[{"single_post_thumbnail_size":"crop-500","single_post_gallery_size":"crop-500"}],"trending_post":"0","trending_post_position":"meta","trending_post_label":"Trending","sponsored_post":"0","sponsored_post_label":"Sponsored by","sponsored_post_name":"","sponsored_post_url":"","sponsored_post_logo_enable":"0","sponsored_post_logo":"","sponsored_post_desc":"","disable_ad":"0"},"jnews_primary_category":{"id":"171","hide":""},"jnews_social_meta":{"fb_title":"No Second Guessing on Valuation: SICC Rejects Natural Justice Challenge to Partial Award","fb_description":"Singapore International Commercial Court upholds arbitral award in USD 14.7M dispute, rejecting natural justice challenge to valuation methodology.","fb_image":"289105","twitter_title":"No Second Guessing on Valuation: SICC Rejects Natural Justice Challenge to Partial Award","twitter_description":"Singapore International Commercial Court upholds arbitral award in USD 14.7M dispute, rejecting natural justice challenge to valuation methodology.","twitter_image":"289105"},"jnews_review":[],"enable_review":"0","type":"percentage","name":"","summary":"","brand":"","sku":"","good":[{"good_text":""}],"bad":[{"bad_text":""}],"score_override":"0","override_value":"","rating":[{"rating_text":"","rating_number":"10"}],"price":[{"shop":"","price":"","link":"","icon":""}],"jnews_override_counter":{"override_view_counter":"0","view_counter_number":"0","override_share_counter":"0","share_counter_number":"0","override_like_counter":"0","like_counter_number":"0","override_dislike_counter":"0","dislike_counter_number":"0"},"footnotes":""},"categories":[205,170,207,188,276,171,161,247],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-289088","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-arbitration","category-asia-pacific","category-commercial-arbitration","category-legal-insights","category-paris-baby-arbitration-pba","category-singapore","category-world","category-worldwide-perspectives"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/289088","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=289088"}],"version-history":[{"count":13,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/289088\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":290442,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/289088\/revisions\/290442"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/289104"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=289088"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=289088"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=289088"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=289088"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}