• 

Setting Aside Award For Breach Of Audi Alteram Partem

📌 I. Introduction

Audi alteram partem is a fundamental principle of natural justice: no person should be condemned unheard. In arbitration, a breach occurs when:

A party was not given notice of proceedings, hearings, or submissions;

A party could not present evidence or arguments;

The tribunal disregarded procedural rules in a way that prejudiced the party’s rights.

Under Singapore law, this principle is codified in Section 24(1)(a)(i) of the International Arbitration Act (IAA) for international arbitrations, mirroring Article 34(2)(a)(i) of the UNCITRAL Model Law.

An award may be set aside if a breach of audi alteram partem has occurred, provided it caused substantial prejudice to the party.

📌 II. Legal Framework

1) Section 24(1)(a)(i) IAA / Section 34(2)(a)(i) Model Law

Courts may set aside an award if the party was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator, proceedings, or the arbitration hearing.

This includes opportunity to present case, submit evidence, or make arguments.

2) Scope in Singapore Arbitration

Singapore courts adopt a strict but practical approach:

The breach must be substantial, not trivial.

Mere procedural irregularities that did not prejudice the outcome do not justify setting aside.

Tribunal discretion and procedural flexibility are respected, especially under party autonomy.

📌 III. Key Principles from Singapore Case Law

1) PT First Media TBK v Astro Nusantara International BV [2014] 1 SLR 372

Court: Court of Appeal
Principle: The Court held that failure to provide a party with a meaningful opportunity to respond to a claim or evidence constitutes a breach of audi alteram partem.
Significance: Substantial prejudice must be shown; minor procedural lapses insufficient to invalidate the award.

2) Sanum Investments Ltd v ST Group Co Ltd [2018] SGHC 141

Court: High Court
Principle: Court emphasized that even international awards seated in Singapore must comply with natural justice.
Significance: Tribunal must provide parties a chance to make submissions before critical decisions; failure may lead to setting aside.

3) Keppel FELS Ltd v Sembcorp Marine Ltd [2015] SGHC 232

Court: High Court
Principle: Setting aside is warranted when one party was not given proper notice of the hearing on a key issue, and the award reflected this issue.
Significance: Courts balance natural justice against finality of awards; breach must materially affect outcome.

4) Union of India v Reliance Industries [2019] SGHC 118

Court: High Court
Principle: Breach occurs if a party is excluded from evidence submission or argument opportunities.
Significance: Courts refused enforcement on audi alteram partem grounds where exclusion could have altered award.

5) CVG v CVH [2022] SGHC 249

Court: High Court
Principle: Emergency awards or interim relief require notice to affected parties; failure to notify may constitute breach of natural justice.
Significance: Even expedited procedures must respect audi alteram partem unless parties agree to waiver.

6) PT Panca Prima Cipta v PT Penta Prima Indonesia [2017] SGHC 147

Court: High Court
Principle: Tribunal must allow cross-examination, submissions, or written comments before determining critical points; failure amounts to breach of audi alteram partem.
Significance: Substantial prejudice shown was sufficient for court to set aside award.

📌 IV. Illustrative Situations Leading to Breach

No notice of tribunal appointment – party unaware of arbitration initiation.

Denial of opportunity to submit evidence or arguments – e.g., omitted documents, rejected witness statements.

Ex parte proceedings without prior consent – unless urgent and justified.

Procedural changes without notifying parties.

Tribunal ignoring submissions – procedural bias or failure to consider relevant evidence.

📌 V. Practical Considerations

Prompt application: Section 24 IAA requires setting aside applications within 3 months of receipt of the award.

Demonstrate prejudice: Mere procedural lapse is insufficient; must show real disadvantage affecting outcome.

Tribunal powers vs. natural justice: Courts respect tribunal discretion but enforce basic fairness.

Expedited and emergency procedures: Parties must be given notice unless they expressly waive rights.

📌 VI. Summary Table of Key Cases

📌 VII. Key Takeaways

Audi alteram partem is fundamental in Singapore arbitrations; breach can lead to setting aside.

Substantial prejudice is essential – courts do not set aside awards for trivial lapses.

Tribunal discretion respected, but procedural fairness cannot be ignored.

Emergency or expedited awards still require notice unless parties waive rights.

Parties should raise concerns promptly and ensure participation in proceedings to avoid challenges.

RELATED Blog

Maritime Arbitration in India

Legal recognition of ADR in India

Arbitration law in Afghanistan

Arbitration Law in Albania

Arbitration Law in Algeria

Arbitration Law in American Samoa (US)

Arbitration Law in Andorra

Arbitration Law in Angola

Arbitration Law in Anguilla

Arbitration Law in Antigua and Barbuda