The Singapore High Court has reaffirmed its firm stance on finality in litigation, delivering a strong message to parties seeking to disrupt arbitration through repeated legal challenges.
The Singapore High Court has dismissed an application by the contractor to remove an arbitrator for apparent bias, in a decision that serves as a compelling case study on the finality of court decisions and the court's intolerance for tactical manoeuvres designed to derail arbitration.
Background: An initial challenge dismissed
In DLS v DLT [2025] SGHC 139, the dispute began when a contractor first sought to set aside two decisions in a partial arbitration award. As part of this initial challenge, the contractor argued that one of the arbitrators had shown apparent bias by not disclosing a previous appointment in an unrelated arbitration involving the sub-contractor's chairman. The High Court reviewed the circumstances and rejected the argument that apparent bias can be included as a new basis for setting aside the arbitral awards, calling it "hopeless." It further held that even if it had allowed the contractor to raise apparent bias as a new basis, it would have failed on its merits.
Issue estoppel applies
Remarkably, just one day after this comprehensive dismissal, the contractor filed a new application in Court to remove the very same arbitrator from the arbitration tribunal on the exact same grounds of apparent bias.
Justice Andre Maniam dismissed this second challenge decisively, ruling it was barred by issue estoppel. This fundamental legal principle prevents a party from raising an issue that has already been conclusively decided by a court. The judge found the contractor was simply trying to re-argue a point it had already lost, noting that even the minor new points raised could have been brought in the first application and were, in any event, without merit.
The Court further noted that the contractor had already brought a challenge before the ICC Court questioning the arbitrator's impartiality or independence by arguing that the arbitrator had not disclosed information of his previous appointment. This challenge was similarly dismissed earlier by the ICC Court.
A tactical detour – and a swift judicial response
The case also involved a dramatic turn where the contractor attempted to halt the Singapore-seated arbitration by starting proceedings in a foreign court. This move was seen as an attempt to circumvent the proper legal process.
The High Court responded swiftly by issuing an interim anti-suit injunction, restraining the contractor from continuing the foreign proceedings and reinforcing the authority of the Singapore court as the supervisory court of the arbitration.
This decision underscores several critical principles:
- Finality of Judgment: Court findings are conclusive. Parties cannot re-litigate lost arguments in new applications, hoping for a different outcome.
- Robust Application of Estoppel: The courts will use issue estoppel as a shield to prevent abusive re-litigation and ensure judicial efficiency.
- Sanctity of the Seat: The supervisory court will act decisively to protect its jurisdiction. Attempts at forum shopping or using foreign courts to interfere with a Singapore-seated arbitration will be met with robust measures like anti-suit injunctions.
- Strategy has Consequences: The contractor's aggressive tactics resulted not only in a dismissal but also cost implications, serving as a cautionary tale on the importance of a sound and principled litigation strategy.
The judgment in DLS v DLT offers clear guidance to parties navigating arbitration disputes. It demonstrates that once a challenge to an arbitration has been argued and determined in Court, parties cannot simply recycle their arguments and challenge the arbitration proceedings under a different guise.
The Singapore Courts remain firm in their support for procedural finality and judicial economy; and will not hesitate to deploy legal tools such as issue estoppel and anti-suit injunctions to uphold these principles.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
