The case involves a Singapore company, which acquired a franchised enrichment centre from the eventual Appellant and two other sellers. Various agreements were entered into, and when the Purchaser noticed lower-than-expected revenues, it initiated arbitration proceedings against all three sellers under the arbitration clauses in the agreements. The Purchaser settled with the other two sellers, but the Appellant did not participate, eventually leading to the arbitrator finding in favour of the Purchaser.

Two years later, when the Purchaser sought to enforce the award, and the Appellant applied to set it aside on four grounds: (1) lack of proper notice, (2) failure to consider an essential issue (infra petita), (3) breach of natural justice and (4) breach of public policy. The Singapore High Court dismissed these challenges, prompting the Appellant to appeal on the first three grounds. The Singapore’s highest appellate court dismissed the appeal and upheld the arbitral award.

1. Notice of arbitration: The Court of Appeal emphasised, referencing Singapore’s Arbitration Act 2001 and relevant Hong Kong authorities, that proper notice does not necessarily require formal service if the party is aware of the proceedings. The Appellant had both actual and deemed notice of the arbitration, and the Appellant had not availed himself of the opportunities to participate.
2. Infra petita  challenges: The Court of Appeal clarified that these challenges should be rationalised as natural justice challenges, and not under Article 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Model Law as previously thought. Crucially, the Court held that a non-participating party cannot raise an infra petita  challenge against an arbitral award. The Court emphasised that allowing such challenges from non-participating parties would undermine the integrity and efficiency of the arbitration process.
3. Lack of consideration argument: The Court of Appeal identified an error in the first instance judge’s conclusion that the arbitrator had implicitly considered the lack of consideration in the award. However, the Appellant’s failure to raise the issue during arbitration meant that it could not be used as a basis for setting aside the award. The Court of Appeal stressed that allowing arbitrators to decide only on issues presented to them is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the arbitration process.
4. Breach of natural justice: This ground was considered dependent on the other dismissed grounds, and it was held that the Arbitrator had no further obligations beyond what had been done to provide the Appellant notice of the proceedings.

Although Harneys does not advise on the laws of Singapore, DEM v DEL  underscores critical aspects of all jurisdictions with developed arbitration laws, particularly the necessity for active participation in proceedings. Parties cannot challenge awards on grounds they neglected to address during the arbitration, thus ensuring the efficiency and integrity of the arbitration process. This case serves as a vital reminder for parties involved in arbitration to remain engaged and pro-active in presenting their cases to avoid adverse outcomes. Understanding the implications of the relevant arbitration legislation and precedents will be essential for stakeholders in arbitration.