The Singapore International Commercial Court has confirmed an issue finally determined in a partial arbitral award cannot be reopened when the tribunal later issues its final award. A party seeking to challenge the earlier award must act within the three-month period prescribed by Article 34(3) of the <span class="news-text_italic-underline">UNCITRAL Model Law</span>.
South Pacific Oil Ltd (“<span class="news-text_medium">SPO</span>”) and Pacific Islands Energy Pte Ltd (“<span class="news-text_medium">PIE</span>”) entered into a petroleum-products supply agreement. Under clause 2.1, SPO was obliged to accept annual minimum purchase quantities. If it failed to do so, clause 2.1(g) entitled PIE to recover liquidated damages.
Following a dispute, the parties commenced arbitration. In May 2024, the tribunal issued a partial award on liability. It found SPO had breached its obligations and PIE was entitled to liquidated damages under clause 2.1(g). The tribunal did not address whether the provision was unenforceable as a penalty.
In August 2025, the tribunal issued its final award on quantum in PIE’s favour. It held SPO could no longer advance the penalty argument because the partial award had already determined clause 2.1(g) was a valid liquidated-damages provision.
SPO applied to set aside the final award under section 24(b) of the <span class="news-text_italic-underline">International Arbitration Act 1994</span> (“<span class="news-text_medium">IAA</span>”) and/or Article 34 of the <span class="news-text_italic-underline">UNCITRAL Model Law</span>. The SICC dismissed the application. The Court found SPO had raised the penalty issue, but the tribunal had failed to address it in the partial award. SPO did not challenge the award within the three-month time limit in Article 34(3) of the <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Model Law</span>. It was therefore too late to seek to set aside the partial award.
Nor could SPO challenge the final award on this basis. The partial award had finally determined the validity of clause 2.1(g). The tribunal was functus officio in relation to the penalty issue and the issue was also subject to issue estoppel. Since the tribunal no longer had jurisdiction to revisit the question, its failure to consider it in the final award could not amount to a breach of natural justice.
The SICC also rejected SPO’s attempt to appeal the tribunal’s negative jurisdictional ruling under section 10(3)(b) of the IAA. This route is unavailable when a ruling is principally jurisdictional but also touches only marginally on the merits, confirming the approach in <span class="news-text_italic-underline">AQZ v ARA [2015] 2 SLR 972</span>. In any event, the tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the penalty issue at the final-award stage.
The SICC dismissed SPO’s remaining grounds of challenge.
The decision underlines the finality of partial awards. Parties must promptly identify and challenge defects in a partial award: an attempt to raise the same point after the final award will fail where the earlier award has finally resolved the issue. It also confirms the limited circumstances in which a negative jurisdictional ruling may be appealed under section 10(3)(b) of the IAA.
<span class="news-text_medium">Case:</span> <span class="news-text_italic-underline">South Pacific Oil Ltd v Pacific Islands Energy Pte Ltd [2026] SGHC(I) 7</span>, 25 June 2026 (Thomas Bathurst IJ).
