Summary

The parties in the present case were involved in a franchise relationship that broke down. Their dispute over the underlying franchise agreements was brought before an arbitral tribunal seated in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The tribunal issued a final award for damages and specific performance largely in favour of the franchisor ("Award").

The franchisee (and its associated company) resisted the enforcement of the Award in Singapore, on grounds pertaining to public policy, natural justice, and scope of submission to arbitration. The Singapore International Commercial Court ("SICC") rejected most of these grounds but found that three orders in the Award were made in breach of natural justice. The parties have brought the present appeals against the SICC's decision.

...

Arbitration -- Application to set aside enforcement order -- Arbitration claimant allegedly raising new quantum case -- Arbitration respondents addressing new quantum case on merits -- Destruction of evidence uncovered during arbitration -- Enforcement -- Foreign award -- Parties not consulted on terms of order for specific performance -- Section 31(2)(c) International Arbitration Act 1994 (2020 Rev Ed) -- Section 31(2)(d) International Arbitration Act 1994 (2020 Rev Ed) -- Section 31(4)(b) International Arbitration Act 1994 (2020 Rev Ed) -- Tribunal accepting new quantum case -- Tribunal making detailed orders for specific performance -- Tribunal refusing application to strike out claims -- Tribunal refusing to draw certain adverse inferences -- Whether arbitration respondents precluded from seeking to set aside the enforcement order -- Whether award was rendered in breach of natural justice -- Whether enforcement of award contrary to public policy of Singapore -- Whether tribunal decided on matters beyond scope of submission to arbitration -- Whether tribunal failed to consider arguments raised