Scribd
Upload
199 views12 pages

Anwar Siraj V Ting Kang Chung

Sections 17 and 18 of the Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 1985 Rev Ed) stipulated that an arbitrator who has misconducted himself or the proceedings, or who fails to use all "reasonable dispatch" in entering on and proceeding with the reference and making an award may be removed by a court. The applicants applied to remove the first respondent ( the arbitrator in a construction dispute between the applicants and the second respondents), on the grounds that the arbitrator was, inter alia, not diligent,

Uploaded by

lostnfnd
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
199 views12 pages

Anwar Siraj V Ting Kang Chung

Sections 17 and 18 of the Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 1985 Rev Ed) stipulated that an arbitrator who has misconducted himself or the proceedings, or who fails to use all "reasonable dispatch" in entering on and proceeding with the reference and making an award may be removed by a court. The applicants applied to remove the first respondent ( the arbitrator in a construction dispute between the applicants and the second respondents), on the grounds that the arbitrator was, inter alia, not diligent,

Uploaded by

lostnfnd
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 12

[J

□
□
□
C
C
□
□
[2003] 2 SLR SINGAPORE LAW REPORTS 287

□ Anwar Siraj and another

□
V
Ting Kang Chung and another

□ [2003] SGHC 64

□
□
High Court- Originating Moti on No 26 of 2002
Tay Yong Kwang J
2! January; 24 March 2003
□ Arbitration - Challenge against arbitrator - Application for removal of arbitrator

D - Whether grounds for such removal made out-Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 1985 Rev Ed)
ss 17 and 18

□ Facts

□ Sections 17 and 18 of the Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 1985 Rev Ed) stipulated that an
arbitrator who has misconducted himself or the proceedings, or who fails to use

□ all "reasonable dispatch" in entering on and proceeding with the reference and
making an award may be removed by a court.

□ The applicants applied to remove the first respondent ( the arbitrator in a


construction dispute between the applicants and the second respondents), on

□ the grounds that the arbitrator was, inter alia, not diligent, incompetent,
inexperienced as an arbitrator, and that he had also shown "definite bias" in the

□ second respondents' favour.

□ Held, di smissing the motion:


(1) "Misconduct" was such a mishandling of the arbitration as was likely to

□ amount to some substantial miscarriage of justice. It was a question of fact and


degree and depended on the circumstances of the case. The making of an

□ erroneous finding of law, of fact or procedural errors did not, by themselves,


amount to misconduct: at [ 40].

C (2) There should exist real grounds for which a reasonable person would think
there was a real likelihood that the arbitrator could not or woulq_ not fairly
determine the issue. A subjective lack of confidence in the arbitrator by one party
D was not a sufficient ground to remove an arbitrator: at [ 41].

□ (3) To support an allegation of bias, it should be shown that the arbitrator's


decision was likely to have been coloured by something which should have no part
at all in a fair decision-making process. Any allegation of lack of impartiality on
C the part of the arbitrator was wholly misplaced: at [ 43].

C (4) "Reasonable dispatch" was a matter of degree to be determined on the facts


of the case. The arbitration process was proceeding on an even keel and at a
re�sonable speed: at [45].
C
C
C

You might also like