P&K Insights: It is not finished until it is finished

Recent Singapore court cases in which an arbitral award has been set aside

Singapore remains a leading arbitration hub that strongly favours finality of an arbitral award. That said, two recent decisions show clear limits to this deference when tribunals overstep procedural boundaries.

This article discusses two Singapore court cases:

• a case in which an arbitral award was set aside because the reasoning of the award did not correspond with the pleaded issues (DOM v DON);
• a case in which an arbitral award was set aside where the Tribunal determined issues that were not pleaded (Wan Sern).

These cases are reminders of the boundaries of an arbitral tribunal – arbitration, in the end, is a dispute resolution mechanism arising from the parties’ contractual agreement. While tribunals have broad discretion to weigh evidence and assess damages, their decisions must remain predictable, transparent, and within the agreed scope. This article, written by Mino Han and Glen Teo, introduces each judgment and offers practical steps to help parties better protect the integrity of arbitral awards.