The Singapore International Commercial Court dismissed an application to set aside a SIAC award by a respondent that had received notice of the arbitration but declined to take part. Its allegations concerning an inability to present its case, fraud, natural justice and public policy did not justify setting aside the award.
In <span class="news-text_italic-underline">DWJ v DWK [2026] SGHC(I) 18</span>, the claimant sought repayment of refundable monthly payments made to a financial advisory firm under an agreement that had not resulted in a transaction during its term. The firm received notice of the SIAC arbitration and updates from the tribunal but did not participate. The tribunal awarded the claimant approximately SGD2.7 million.
The respondent subsequently argued that it had been unable to present its case because it lacked legal advice, did not appreciate the consequences of non-participation and understood from statements by the claimant’s chief executive officer that the arbitration would be suspended. The court rejected those arguments. There was no suggestion that the advisory firm could not have obtained legal advice, while the statements relied upon were conditional proposals whose conditions had not been met.
The respondent also alleged that the claimant had concealed verbal assurances that the repayment provisions would not be enforced. The court found no evidence of deliberate concealment intended to deceive the tribunal. Nor did natural justice require the claimant to advance the absent respondent’s defence: the arbitration was not an ex parte court application attracting a general duty of full and frank disclosure. The public policy challenge failed for similar reasons.
The decision highlights the risks of choosing not to participate in an arbitration. A party given the opportunity to present its case cannot ordinarily rely on its own absence to challenge the resulting award, although deliberate deception concerning material facts may raise a different issue.
<span class="news-text_medium">Case:</span> <span class="news-text_italic-underline">DWJ v DWK [2026] SGHC(I) 18</span>, 15 September 2026 (Sir Nigel Teare IJ).
