Arya Hartalkar<\/strong>, ACIArb (UK), Associate to Justice G.S. Singhvi<\/strong>, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
In DOI v. DOJ and others<\/em> [2025] SGHC(I) 15<\/a> (\u201cDOI v. DOJ<\/em><\/strong>\u201d), the Singapore International Commercial Court (\u201cSICC<\/strong>\u201d)addressed several crucial issues in international arbitration. The judgment centred on the Claimant\u2019s application to set aside an arbitral award, in light of the alleged cut-and-paste copying in the award from awards in prior related arbitrations (the \u201cRelated Awards<\/strong>\u201d). The SICC set aside the award on the grounds of a breach of natural justice, finding that the majority in the arbitral tribunal (the \u201cMajority<\/strong>\u201d) had prejudged the issues, as evidenced by the extensive similarities between the award and the Related Awards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The present dispute arose from a Singapore-seated ICC<\/a> arbitration regarding a contract for the construction of a section of the Dedicated Freight Corridor in India (the \u201cCTP-11 Contract<\/strong>\u201d). The Claimant was a special purpose vehicle established for the development and operation of dedicated freight corridors, which serve as an exclusive network of railways intended only for freight transport. The Respondents, which comprised three contractors operating as an unincorporated consortium, were engaged to execute the works under the CTP-11 Contract.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Claimant had also entered into three other contracts for separate sections of the freight corridor, each containing terms substantially similar to those of the CTP-11 Contract. The respective contractors under each of the other three contracts commenced separate arbitrations against the Claimant. The final awards in these three arbitrations were issued between 1 July 2023 and 24 November 2023. Subsequently, on 5 June 2024, the arbitral tribunal issued the award in relation to the CTP-11 Contract, in which the Respondents succeeded on most of their claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Claimant applied to set aside this award under the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 2006<\/a>, which is incorporated into Singapore law by the International Arbitration Act 1994<\/a>. Among other grounds, the Claimant alleged a breach of the rules of natural justice, asserting that the majority of the tribunal had prejudged the issues, failed to independently evaluate the evidence and submissions before it, and placed undue reliance on the awards from the three related arbitrations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Claimant submitted that the Majority had used the Related Awards as a \u201ctemplate\u201d by effectively reproducing in substance its reasoning and analysis across all issues in the award. By doing so, the Claimant argued that the Majority failed to apply its mind independently and did not appreciate the evidence and arguments presented in this particular arbitration. This resulted in an award rendered with closed-mindedness and prejudgment, violating the rules of natural justice. The Claimant sought to set aside the award based on four grounds: breach of natural justice, inability to present its case, adoption of an arbitral procedure which was not in accordance with the parties\u2019 agreement, and conflict with Singapore\u2019s public policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The SICC\u2019s judgment focused on the first ground, namely whether the Majority\u2019s actions amounted to a breach of the rules of natural justice, in particular apparent bias in the form of prejudgment and failure to give a fair hearing. The SICC held that the tribunal\u2019s extensive reproduction of the reasoning in its analyses across all issues in the award clearly indicated that an observer would have a reasonable suspicion of bias in the form of prejudgment through the Majority coming to its decision with a closed mind. The errors in citing and referencing contractual provisions and arguments not applicable to the present case further supported the conclusion that the Majority\u2019s mind was directed to the decisions in the Related Awards, and closed to the decision on the evidence and arguments before it in this arbitration. The Claimant was also denied the opportunity to respond to new arguments and authorities cited in the Majority\u2019s decision (which had been taken from earlier awards and were never raised by either party in the present case).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The SICC also held that the Claimant did not waive its right to challenge the award by not raising objections during the arbitration process. The SICC noted that the Claimant did not have sufficient factual knowledge to justify a challenge before the award was issued, as the tribunal\u2019s conduct during the proceedings did not indicate a closed mind.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The award was ultimately set aside by the SICC for breach of natural justice by failure to give a fair hearing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In reaching its decision, the SICC also emphasised that procedural fairness, including impartiality and independent decision-making, is fundamental to arbitration. In particular, the SICC highlighted the following points:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The SICC reaffirmed the Singapore courts\u2019 commitment to procedural fairness as a fundamental principle of its justice system (including in arbitration) and its emphasis on the need to strictly uphold due process rights. Parties should be given an equal opportunity to present their case and respond to all issues that may influence the tribunal\u2019s reasoning. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The SICC noted that impartiality is the backbone of arbitration, as of any other dispute resolution mechanism. Apparent bias, including prejudgment or undue reliance on prior awards, raises questions about the legitimacy of the arbitral process. A tribunal is expected to independently evaluate the evidence and arguments before it, without allowing prior decisions to improperly influence its reasoning. This is particularly significant in cases involving multiple arbitrations with the same or similar facts. Extra caution should be exercised to ensure that decisions are free from prejudgment or influence by prior awards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The SICC commented on the risks associated with reproducing the reasoning from prior awards, as it is likely to give rise to allegations of prejudgment or apparent bias.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This judgment reflects the Singapore courts\u2019 careful exercise of their power of minimal curial intervention to protect the integrity of the arbitration proceedings. The benchmark for establishing a breach of natural justice is very high, reserved for exceptional cases. Courts usually avoid intervention in the awards to ensure that challenges to awards are not misused as appeals on the merits of the case. The focus is on fairness in the arbitral process, regardless of whether the tribunal\u2019s decision was right or wrong. However, the Singapore courts will not hesitate to intervene when fundamental principles of natural justice are not stringently upheld, reaffirming their commitment to ensuring high standards of procedural fairness. This approach ultimately underscores Singapore\u2019s reputation as a neutral seat for arbitration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The judgment also outlines the principles of procedural integrity and fairness in international arbitration and lays down the principles for an arbitral tribunal\u2019s conduct. In particular, an arbitral tribunal must independently apply its mind and deliver a reasoned decision based on the evidence and arguments presented in the case at hand. A mechanical replication of reasoning in prior awards can easily lead to a conclusion of prejudgment. The SICC clarified that apparent bias goes beyond any personal interest, and also extends to extensive copying from earlier awards which may reveal a closed mind, leading to doubt as to whether the tribunal adjudicated the case in hand on its own merits. In situations involving apparent bias, the SICC held that prejudice would be presumed particularly where due process is compromised, thus lowering the threshold for setting aside an award.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The decision in DOI v. DOJ<\/em><\/a> is an important development in international arbitration jurisprudence, and has a significant impact beyond Singapore. With Singapore being a highly preferred and arbitration-friendly jurisdiction, the judgment sends a strong message to tribunals worldwide about the standards of procedural fairness and award drafting. It highlights the type of scrutiny that arbitral tribunals (whether operating under institutional rules or ad hoc<\/em> arbitrations) must now expect when taking procedural shortcuts. In particular, the judgment cautions against copy-pasted reasoning from prior awards, even in cases involving the same parties, without independent and rigorous adjudication based on the record in the proceedings at hand. Although consistency and predictability are hallmarks of arbitration, the Singapore courts have made it clear that templated reasoning cannot be a replacement for a fact-specific analysis based on evidence and arguments presented in each case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The judgment therefore sets minimum standards for award drafting, cautioning against replication of previous findings, use of drafting templates or artificial intelligence tools, which will be closely scrutinised if they risk undermining the tribunal\u2019s independent judgment. Judicial oversight, particularly in leading arbitration jurisdictions such as Singapore, Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, and France, may now increasingly focus on issues of natural justice. For parties, this development reshapes enforcement dynamics: award creditors may find their awards more vulnerable to challenge if templated reasoning or factual shortcuts can be demonstrated, prompting a recalibration of both advocacy strategies and expectations in cross-border disputes. DOI v. DOJ<\/em> is not just another arbitration case; it is a wake-up call. Even in similar dispute contexts, there is no substitute for case-specific and reasoned adjudication.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In his 1999 article, ‘Towards a Decline of International Arbitration?’ (Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management, vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 251-254), Professor Pierre Lalive rightly predicted that the enormous increase of disputes will result in the growing commercialization of human activity and consequently a danger of lowering professional, intellectual, and ethical standards, or, to put in one word, quality. The present deprecated practice of copy-paste mentality unfortunately proves that Prof. Lalive\u2019s fears have now turned into reality. However, at the same time, the SICC\u2019s judgment presents a ray of hope.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In R v. Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy<\/em> [1924] 1 KB 256, 259, Lord Heward CJ held that \u201cjustice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done\u201d<\/em>. In that case, the Court held that even the appearance of bias in judicial proceedings was unacceptable, since public confidence in the legal system depends not only on fair outcomes, but also on transparency and impartiality being visible. The SICC\u2019s judgment in DOI v. DOJ<\/a><\/em> clearly affirms this principle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Editor:<\/strong> Bernice Tan<\/strong><\/a>, Senior Associate at Drew & Napier<\/strong><\/a> and SG VYAP Editorial & Publishing Director<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n In DOI v. DOJ, Singapore’s SICC set aside an award for apparent bias, finding the tribunal had copied reasoning from related awards and prejudged the issues.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":292337,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jnews-multi-image_gallery":[],"jnews_single_post":{"format":"standard","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_featured":"1","show_post_meta":"1","show_post_date":"1","post_date_format":"default","post_date_format_custom":"Y\/m\/d","show_post_reading_time":"0","post_reading_time_wpm":"300","post_calculate_word_method":"str_word_count","show_zoom_button":"0","zoom_button_out_step":"2","zoom_button_in_step":"3","show_comment_section":"1","number_popup_post":"1","show_post_related":"0","show_inline_post_related":"0"}],"image_override":[{"single_post_thumbnail_size":"crop-500","single_post_gallery_size":"crop-500"}],"trending_post_position":"meta","trending_post_label":"Trending","sponsored_post_label":"Sponsored by","disable_ad":"0"},"jnews_primary_category":{"id":"171"},"jnews_social_meta":{"twitter_description":"In DOI v. DOJ, Singapore's SICC set aside an award for apparent bias, finding the tribunal had copied reasoning from related awards and prejudged the issues.","fb_description":"In DOI v. DOJ, Singapore's SICC set aside an award for apparent bias, finding the tribunal had copied reasoning from related awards and prejudged the issues.","fb_title":"DOI v. DOJ and others [2025] SGHC(I) 15: A Progressive Dimension of International Arbitration","twitter_title":"DOI v. DOJ and others [2025] SGHC(I) 15: A Progressive Dimension of International Arbitration","twitter_image":"292338","fb_image":"292338"},"jnews_review":[],"enable_review":"","type":"","name":"","summary":"","brand":"","sku":"","good":[],"bad":[],"score_override":"","override_value":"","rating":[],"price":[],"jnews_override_counter":{"view_counter_number":"0","share_counter_number":"0","like_counter_number":"0","dislike_counter_number":"0"},"footnotes":""},"categories":[205,209,170,207,196,183,195,188,171,161],"tags":[],"coauthors":[325],"class_list":["post-292335","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-arbitration","category-arbitration-aftermath-post-award","category-asia-pacific","category-commercial-arbitration","category-construction","category-india","category-industry","category-legal-insights","category-singapore","category-world"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/292335","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=292335"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/292335\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":292647,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/292335\/revisions\/292647"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/292337"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=292335"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=292335"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=292335"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=292335"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Summary of Facts<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Claimant\u2019s Submission<\/strong><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The SICC\u2019s Judgment<\/strong><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Procedural Fairness<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Apparent Bias<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Comment<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Conclusion<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/2024-05-Editorial-Banner-singapore-1-1024x345.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nAbout the Author<\/strong><\/h3>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"