The Singapore International Commercial Court (“<span class="news-text_medium">SICC</span>”) dismissed applications to set aside awards made in a SIAC arbitration, finding that alleged non-disclosures and connections to a third-party funder did not establish apparent bias on the part of two arbitrators.
The dispute arose from non-disclosure agreements between The Tata Power Company Ltd and Kleros Capital Partners Ltd. Kleros, which was funded by Omni Bridgeway, commenced arbitration against Tata. A majority of the tribunal found in Kleros’s favour. Tata subsequently challenged the awards, alleging apparent bias involving Professor Boo and Mr Isaacs KC.
Tata’s complaints centred on the arbitrators’ appointments in other arbitrations funded by Omni Bridgeway, which they had not disclosed. It also alleged that Professor Boo had a close personal relationship with Benjamin Hughes, a member of Omni Bridgeway’s investment committee. Tata pointed to their association with the same chambers and university, as well as a LinkedIn farewell message Mr Hughes had directed to Professor Boo when leaving the chambers.
The SICC applied the test of whether a reasonable, fair-minded observer, aware of the relevant facts, would reasonably suspect that a fair determination was not possible. It found the connections insufficient. The other arbitrations involved unrelated parties and issues and were not repeat appointments by the same party or law firm. The evidence did not establish a relationship between Professor Boo and Mr Hughes material to apparent bias; Professor Boo also confirmed that he had never discussed his dealings with Omni Bridgeway with Mr Hughes.
The court rejected the suggestion that a funder’s economic interest meant it should always be treated as having the identity of the funded party. It considered Tata’s concerns unduly suspicious and noted that Tata had not identified the danger to a fair determination said to arise from the alleged connections. There was no suggestion that the awards had not been properly decided on their merits.
The decision illustrates that non-disclosure or a connection with a third-party funder does not, without more, establish apparent bias. A party challenging an award must show why the circumstances give rise to a real concern about the tribunal’s ability to determine the dispute fairly.
<span class="news-text_medium">Case:</span> <span class="news-text_italic-underline">The Tata Power Company Ltd v Kleros Capital Partners Ltd [2026] SGHC(I) 15</span>, 26 August 2026 (Mohan J, Besanko IJ and Meagher IJ).
