Summary

Introduction

The doctrines of maintenance and champerty have rendered Singapore historically resistant to legalising third-party funding for dispute resolution, animated by the principle that justice is not a commodity to be trafficked in. Against this background, the application before us concerns the following question - where a tribunal declines to award to the successful arbitrant costs associated with such third-party funding on the grounds that it does not have the authority or power to do so under Singapore law, whether that decision may be liable to be set aside as being contrary to Singapore's public policy. A related question is whether such an award may be said to have been made in breach of the parties' agreed arbitral procedure.

Arbitration - Award - Recourse against award - Setting aside - Whether award in conflict with public policy of Singapore under Art 34(2)(b)(ii) UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration - International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2020 Rev Ed) - Whether tribunal's decision was not in accordance with the arbitral procedure agreed by the parties - Singapore-seated arbitration ("Arbitration")