Summary

This is an application to set aside an award issued in March 2025 ("the Award") delivered by a tribunal ("the Tribunal") in an arbitration ("the Arbitration") seated in Singapore and conducted under the Arbitration Rules (6th Edition, 1 August 2016) ("the SIAC Rules") of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre ("the SIAC"). The Award includes an order terminating the Arbitration. That, of course, meant that the Tribunal did not go on to determine the merits of the applicant's claim against the respondent. The Tribunal took this unusual step because it found that continuing the Arbitration had "become...impossible" within the meaning of Article 32(2)(c) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration ("the Model Law") read with s 3(1) of the International Arbitration Act 1994 ("the Act").

...

The applicant submits that the Award ought to be set aside because a breach of natural justice occurred in connection with the making of the Award that has prejudiced the applicant’s rights within the meaning of s 24(b) of the Act. In the alternative, the applicant submits that it was unable to present its case in the Arbitration within the meaning of Art 34(2)(a)(ii) of the Model Law.

The applicant is particularly aggrieved because the limitation period that governs its claim against the respondent expired in April 2024, 11 months before the Tribunal terminated the Arbitration by issuing the Award. The result of the Award is that the applicant can no longer commence a fresh arbitration to secure a final and binding determination of its claim against the respondent on the merits.

I have dismissed the application. I accept the respondent’s submission that this application is in substance nothing more than a disguised appeal against the Tribunal’s finding of fact that it was impossible to continue the arbitration within the meaning of Art 32(2)(c) of the Model Law. The Tribunal did not breach any aspect of natural justice either by terminating the Arbitration or by failing to determine the applicant’s claim against the respondent on the merits. As the Tribunal held, Art 32(2)(c) positively obliges a tribunal to terminate an arbitration when it is impossible to continue it. Article 32(2)(c) therefore not only envisages but expressly mandates that every such arbitration will conclude with a termination order issued under Art 32(2)(c) and not with the final award issued under Art 32(1). Article 32(2) mandates this: (a) even if a termination order will cause irremediable prejudice to a party; and (b) even if the impossibility arises from circumstances that are not caused by the party prejudiced, or indeed any of the parties.

...