Case Summary: DJP & Ors. v. DJO (2025) | Singapore Sets Precedent in Copy-Paste Arbitration Case
Singapore Court sets aside arbitral award in DJP v DJO (2025) for copy-pasting from prior awards, citing breach of natural justice. Scroll down to read more!;
On 8th April 2025, the Singapore Court of Appeal issued a decisive ruling in DJP and others v. DJO [2025] SGCA(I) 2, reaffirming Singapore's commitment to fair and impartial arbitration. The case has captured international attention due to the court's decision to set aside an arbitral award that incorporated more than 200 paragraphs copied from earlier, unrelated arbitrations. The ruling highlights the vital importance of due process and impartiality in arbitration, especially in a...
On 8th April 2025, the Singapore Court of Appeal issued a decisive ruling in DJP and others v. DJO [2025] SGCA(I) 2, reaffirming Singapore's commitment to fair and impartial arbitration. The case has captured international attention due to the court's decision to set aside an arbitral award that incorporated more than 200 paragraphs copied from earlier, unrelated arbitrations.
The ruling highlights the vital importance of due process and impartiality in arbitration, especially in a jurisdiction renowned for being a global arbitration hub.
Case Title: DJP and Others v DJO
Court: Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore
Citation: [2025] SGCA(I) 2
Bench: Sundaresh Menon CJ, Steven Chong JCA, David Edmond Neuberger IJ
Date of Judgment: 8th April 2025
Background of the Dispute
The appellants, DJP, DJQ, and DJR, formed a consortium to undertake construction work on India’s Western Dedicated Freight Corridor. They entered into a contract (CPT-13 Contract) with the respondent, DJO, a special purpose vehicle managing these infrastructure projects.
A 2017 notification by the Indian Ministry of Labour increased minimum wages across the country. The appellants contended that this constituted a "change in legislation" under Clause 13.7 of the FIDIC Conditions incorporated in the contract and sought compensation for increased labour costs. Arbitration was initiated in 2021, with the proceedings seated in Singapore and governed by the ICC Rules.
The tribunal eventually ruled in the appellants' favour. However, DJO sought to set aside the award because it had been substantially “copied and pasted” from two other arbitral awards involving similar claims, raising serious questions of procedural fairness and natural justice.
The Parallel Arbitrations
The two related arbitrations—referred to as the CP-301 and CP-302 Arbitrations—involved different contractor consortiums but similar claims against DJO. All three proceedings involved the same presiding arbitrator, though the co-arbitrators and legal representation varied.
The Court noted that out of the 451 paragraphs in the CPT-13 Award, 212 had been copied from the CP-301 and CP-302 Awards. The key concern was that the reused material was not always consistent with the facts, arguments, or legal context specific to the CPT-13 Arbitration.
Legal Issues on Appeal
The primary legal issue was whether the award should be set aside under Section 24(b) of the International Arbitration Act 1994 (2020 Rev Ed) and Article 34(2)(a)(iv) of the UNCITRAL Model Law for breach of natural justice.
The appellants argued that the reuse of content did not materially impact the outcome and merely served as an efficiency tool. The respondents contended that the copied content undermined the integrity of the process, especially given the presence of factual and legal differences across the arbitrations.
The Court’s Findings
The Singapore Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the High Court's decision to set aside the award. Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, delivering the judgment of the court, emphasised that procedural fairness is foundational to arbitration. The judgment clarified the following:
1. Breach of Natural Justice Due to Apparent Bias
The Court found that a fair-minded and informed observer would reasonably apprehend that the tribunal, particularly the presiding arbitrator, had prejudged the dispute. Reusing large parts of prior awards, without adjustment for different arguments, contracts, and legal provisions, amounted to apparent bias.
Notably, the award cited incorrect contractual clauses (e.g., Clause 13.8 from a different contract) and applied the wrong legal framework (Indian arbitration law instead of the Singapore IAA) for interest and cost awards. Both errors traced back to copied content.
2. Violation of the Audi Alteram Partem Rule
The arbitrators relied on materials and legal authorities not cited or debated by the parties, including referencing computations and cases raised in the parallel arbitrations. The Court reiterated that reliance on unshared or undisclosed material breached the fair hearing rule.
3. Inequality Among Tribunal Members
Only the presiding arbitrator had participated in all three proceedings. The co-arbitrators were not privy to the CP-301 or CP-302 awards. The asymmetry in access to information compromised the collective adjudicative function of the tribunal, violating the expectation of equality in arbitration.
4. Unacceptable “Shortcuts” in Decision-Making
The Court rejected the argument that the reuse of earlier reasoning was a permissible “short cut.” It stressed that arbitrators must independently apply their mind to the facts and arguments specific to each arbitration, and cannot simply reuse conclusions from other cases without thorough justification.
Key Legal Principles Clarified
This ruling further elucidated the following jurisprudential points:
- Natural Justice is process-centric, not outcome-centric. The court’s role is to evaluate the fairness of the process rather than correctness of the award.
- Appearance of bias is sufficient. The court is not required to prove actual bias; a reasonable apprehension of prejudgment undermines arbitral integrity.
- Remission is not always viable. Since the breach permeated the entire decision-making process, the court refused to remit only affected parts. The whole award stood tainted.
Broader Implications for International Arbitration
This decision reinforces Singapore’s reputation as a model jurisdiction for ethical and accountable arbitration practices. It sends a clear message to arbitrators and parties that:
- Reusing legal reasoning across proceedings must be done transparently and with due regard to party-specific differences.
- Confidentiality in arbitration does not excuse a lack of attribution or reliance on inaccessible materials.
- Party-appointed arbitrators and presiding members must maintain equal footing in access and deliberation.
In essence, while efficiency in arbitral proceedings is desirable, it cannot override the fundamental requirement of fairness and independence.
Comparative Insight: Judicial Copying v. Arbitral Reuse
The Court noted that while judicial officers sometimes adopt content from counsel submissions or prior judgments, arbitration is different due to:
- Lack of appeal rights in most arbitrations, which heightens the need for process integrity.
- Confidentiality limits party scrutiny of extraneous influences.
- Equal treatment obligations under Article 18 of the Model Law, breached here by informational imbalance.
Conclusion
The Singapore Court of Appeal's decision in DJP v. DJO [2025] SGCA(I) 2 is a landmark judgment setting a high bar for procedural integrity in international arbitration. It reaffirms that arbitration, though flexible, must never compromise on the pillars of natural justice. The judgment serves as a critical guide for tribunals, institutions, and parties navigating complex multi-contract arbitrations with overlapping issues.
As arbitration continues to dominate cross-border commercial dispute resolution, this decision ensures that Singapore remains not just a convenient seat, but a principled one.
Click Here to Read the Official Judgment
