In CIM v CIN  SGHC 75, the Singapore High Court held that there is no duty for a party to correct an opponent's incorrect understanding of its case in an arbitration.
CIM, the respondent in the arbitration to set aside an arbitral award partly because CIN's counsel did not correct its misunderstanding of CIN's case expressed during the hearing, wherein CIN made vague references to a certain argument in its written submissions. When CIM's counsel stated her understanding of the argument, which was wrong, the opponent counsel did not correct her but made the argument plainly in final written submissions, which the tribunal accepted. CIM later applied to set aside the award, claiming that it was denied procedural fairness by not being properly informed of its opponent's case.
The court disagreed and held that the loser's failure to appreciate the argument was of its own doing. The court had the following to say:
This decision serves as a reminder for parties to be alert against any vague submissions. In the event of any doubt, the party should formally ask for clarification from their opponent, to prevent any further misunderstandings.