The Singapore High Court has held the reasonable-suspicion test applies not only to apparent-bias allegations but also to alleged breaches of the fair-hearing rule in arbitration. Applying this test, the Court rejected a set-aside challenge founded on similarities between awards issued in concurrent maritime arbitrations.
The challenge arose from concurrent maritime arbitrations under a head charter and a sub-charter. Separate tribunals heard the references but sat together and received the same evidence. The claimant sought to set aside the award issued in the sub-reference (the “<span class="news-text_medium">Award</span>”) under section 24(b) of the <span class="news-text_italic-underline">International Arbitration Act 1994</span>.
It contended similarities between the Award and the award in the related head-charter arbitration (the “Head Award”) showed the sub-reference tribunal had used the Head Award as a template. According to the claimant, this created apparent bias and amounted to a breach of the fair-hearing rule.
The High Court dismissed the application. In doing so, it extended the reasonable-suspicion test from <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Public Prosecutor v Pek Lian Guan and another appeal [2026] 3 SLR 1109</span> (“<span class="news-text_medium">Pek Lian Guan</span>”) to the arbitral context.
Although arbitration does not raise the same public-accountability considerations as court proceedings, the Court held that the appearance of justice remains essential.
Parties will ordinarily have no appeal on the merits of an award, making due process the principal and sometimes the only basis for challenge. The rule against bias and the fair-hearing rule are co-equal elements of procedural justice: justice must both be done and be seen to be done.
The Court distinguished <span class="news-text_italic-underline">DOI v DOJ [2025] 4 SLR 657</span>, which had suggested the reasonable-suspicion test does not apply to alleged fair-hearing breaches. This case pre-dated Pek Lian Guan and had not directly addressed the issue.
Applying the reasonable-suspicion test, the Court found the similarities between the two awards were largely attributable to undisputed background facts, shared evidence and overlapping issues arising from the same factual matrix.
A fair-minded and informed observer would not reasonably suspect the sub-reference tribunal had prejudged the issues, failed to apply its mind independently or improperly relied on the Head Award. Instead, the Award demonstrated an independent assessment of the evidence and submissions before the tribunal.
The Court confirmed a tribunal may refer to and consider an award in a related arbitration, provided it exercises its own independent judgment.
This is the first Singapore decision to extend the reasonable-suspicion test to the arbitral context. It confirms the test governs both apparent-bias claims and allegations of breach of the fair-hearing rule, while recognising parallel or related arbitrations may legitimately produce overlapping reasoning where they share evidence and issues.
<span class="news-text_medium">Case:</span> <span class="news-text_italic-underline">DSS v DST [2026] SGHC 145</span>, Singapore High Court, 15 July 2026 (Xu J).
