An arbitral tribunal shall have the powers conferred by the arbitration agreement and the applicable arbitration rules agreed upon by the parties. In addition, the Ministry of Justice is seeking comments on whether legislative amendments should be introduced in the IAA to allow the tribunal to make an order for the costs of the arbitration proceedings following a granted application under article 24 of the IAA or article 34(2) of the Model Law for the setting aside of an arbitral award. in whole or in part. This fills the current loophole in the law, as neither the court nor the tribunal has the power to rule on costs if a party wins its application to set aside an arbitral award. Similar changes are under consideration for the AA for national arbitration. According to the doctrine of res judicata, a party is prohibited from renegotiating a matter that is already the subject of a final arbitral award. Attempting to reopen the same issue in other court proceedings would be an abuse of the judicial process. The question of estoppel also arises if the first procedure is arbitration. 1.2 What other elements should be included in an arbitration agreement? Appeals against arbitral awards and grounds for setting aside arbitral awards. The AA provides for the parties` right of appeal in legal matters and gives the tribunal the power to set aside an arbitral award in situations where the arbitral tribunal has failed in the proceedings themselves.
The IAA does not provide for the right to appeal against an arbitral award in legal matters and allows a party to seek the setting aside of an arbitral award only if the situation falls within several narrow grounds other than those set out in article 34, paragraph 2, of the Model Law, such as. B the existence of fraud or corruption. a violation of the rules of natural justice and respect for public order. The Court`s approach to the IAA regime was described by the Singapore High Court in Stanley Tan Poh Leng v. Jeffrey Tang Boon Jeck (2000) as “totally opposed to the court making the substantive decision or investigating the correctness of the decision” and “the power to remember, to reconsider and reverse is not well aligned with the coherence of the things of the Model Law”. Applications for the setting aside of arbitral awards may be granted if one of the limited grounds set out in Section 34(2) of the MAL (which is attached to and forms part of the IAA), the most important of which are the following: Domestic arbitration in Singapore is subject to the Arbitration Act (Cap. 10) (“AA”). First of all, a distinction must be made between international arbitration and national arbitration.
In general, arbitration is “international” if the parties to the arbitration have different nationalities or if the subject matter of the dispute concerns a State other than the State in which the parties are nationals. An international arbitration generally has no connection with the State in which the arbitration takes place, except that it takes place in its territory. The parties to an international dispute are usually corporations or state entities and not individuals, while domestic arbitration concerns small claims of individuals. Many States that recognize that different considerations apply to international commercial arbitration have provided for a separate legal system for arbitration of an international nature, so that the courts of the State in which the arbitration takes place are less likely to intervene judicially in the arbitration. As a starting point, a distinction must be made between domestic and international arbitration. Under the Association Agreement, in arbitration (upon notification by the other parties and the arbitral tribunal), a party may appeal to the courts of Singapore against a point of law arising from an arbitral award. Such a right of appeal does not exist under the IAA. However, the proposed amendment to the IAA introduces new sections 24A to 24D, which provide for the possibility for the parties to include a right of appeal to the High Court in a point of law arising from an arbitral award if they agree to opt for this mechanism. The aim is to strengthen party autonomy and enable parties to make a conscious decision on judicial review in legal matters. The text of the amendment reflects the text of appeals under the AA, with the exception that the mechanism provided for by the IAA will only be available on an accession basis. As noted by the Court of Appeal, courts will not interfere with the merits of an arbitral award, saving parties who have made decisions they may regret or offering them a second chance to consider the merits of their respective cases. Instead, courts intervene to intervene in the enforcement of an arbitral award only if a fundamental procedural error has occurred that affects the fairness of the arbitration, or if a decision goes beyond the jurisdiction granted to the arbitral tribunal by the arbitration agreement.
With respect to the power of an arbitral tribunal to order security for costs, the laws provide that such an order may not be made on the sole ground that the claimant is a foreign individual, company or association. The laws also provide that any order or order made or promulgated by an arbitral tribunal during the arbitration shall be enforceable with the authorization of the tribunal in the same manner as if they were orders of the tribunal. The arbitral tribunal (“Tribunal”) ruled in favour of the defendant, awarded him damages for the loss of the opportunity to win and granted him an exemption from his payment obligations. The plaintiffs then applied to the High Court for the award to be set aside for violation of natural justice and exceeding jurisdiction. The High Court found that it had committed an infringement of natural justice by failing to take into account the applicants` arguments on a number of issues. One case was when the court reclassified the plaintiffs` claim for damages as a “loss of opportunity” claim and did not give them an opportunity to address this issue. The High Court also found that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction in deciding on matters that went beyond the agreed scope of the arbitration. The Court of Appeal upheld the appeals in part after finding that the High Court had erred in various respects. The Court of Appeal held that when considering a challenge for violation of natural justice, the courts must first assess the actual nature of the challenge. Only the fact that an arbitral tribunal did not even consider an argument would constitute a violation of natural justice. A decision rejecting an argument is merely an error of law and does not in itself constitute grounds for setting aside an arbitral award. However, the parties may themselves agree that the arbitration will be consolidated with other arbitrations; or that simultaneous hearings are held on the agreed terms.
Under the SIAC Rules, Rule 8, a party may request the Registrar (before the tribunal is convened) or the tribunal to combine two or more arbitration proceedings pending under the SIAC Rules into a single arbitration, provided that certain conditions are met: suspension of proceedings. The AA provides that the tribunal may stay the proceedings “if it is satisfied that there are not sufficient reasons why the case should not be presented in accordance with the arbitration agreement […].