Court of Appeal Dismisses “Infra Petita” and Natural Justice Challenges to Arbitral Award

In DKT v DKU [2025] SGCA 23, the Court of Appeal dismissed what it described as a “baseless appeal” against the High Court’s refusal to set aside an arbitral award. The Court held that the appellant’s numerous complaints were in substance impermissible attempts to challenge the merits of the award, thinly framed as natural justice arguments to fit within the limited grounds for setting aside under section 48(1) of the Singapore Arbitration Act 2001.

The dispute concerned maintenance contracts under which the appellant had submitted at least 278 claims for crack repair works. A consultancy’s expert report found many works incomplete or not performed in accordance with the agreed method. Relying primarily on this report, the respondent commenced arbitration for breaches of contracts. The tribunal accepted the expert report and awarded about SGD 2 million to the respondent.

On appeal, the appellant raised three natural justice challenges: that the tribunal ignored certain pleaded defences, failed to consider arguments about core samples allegedly taken from wrong locations, and adopted an unexpected chain of reasoning on that sampling issue.

The Court rejected all three challenges. As for the first two natural justice complaints–both framed as infra petita claims that the tribunal failed to consider issues properly before it–the Court cautioned against the growing tendency of award debtors to misuse this ground and set out a clear four-part framework for assessing such claims.

First, the point must have been properly raised before the tribunal. Second, the point must have been essential to the resolution of the dispute. Third, the tribunal must have completely failed to consider the point. Fourth, the omission must have resulted in actual prejudice.

Applying its four-part framework, the Court found that both infra petita claims failed immediately. The tribunal had in fact addressed the pleaded defences, examined their factual premises, and found no evidential support. It had also expressly considered the mistaken core samples, explained why the error was immaterial, and confirmed that the remaining evidence supported the respondent’s case. The Court emphasized that infra petita review concerns only whether an issue was considered, not the correctness or sufficiency of the tribunal’s analysis.

The chain-of-reasoning complaint also failed. The Court reiterated that such challenges succeed only where a tribunal adopts reasoning that the parties had no notice of or that is so disconnected from their arguments that they could not address it. Here, the appellant’s complaint was really an attack on the reliability of the expert report, not a fair hearing issue. The tribunal had expressly considered the sampling error, accepted the respondent’s submission that there was no natural justice concern, and treated the error as going only to evidential weight. Its conclusion that the report remained reliable and unrebutted could not have taken the parties by surprise.

The Court dismissed the appeal and ordered indemnity costs against the appellant. This decision reinforces the Court’s consistent position that natural justice and infra petita challenges cannot be used to reopen the merits of an arbitral award. It confirms that tribunals are not required to provide elaborate reasoning, that chain-of-reasoning challenges are strictly confined, and that unmeritorious attempts to re-litigate will attract indemnity costs.