The Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) recently nullified an international arbitral award against a Government of India freight railway network company after discovering that substantial portions of the award were “copy-pasted” from prior cases. The ruling raised concerns about the tribunal’s adherence to natural justice principles.
International Judge Simon Thorley described the case as “unusual and troubling,” noting that the tribunal, which included three retired Indian judges, appeared to have cut corners by reusing over 200 paragraphs from previous arbitration cases. The judge concluded that this approach demonstrated a failure to independently assess the unique facts of the current case, ultimately leading to the decision to set aside the award.
The controversy centered around one arbitrator, referred to as “Judge C,” who presided over the disputed November 2023 award. Judge C had also been involved in two similar arbitration cases, and the tribunal’s use of extensive “copy-pasting” suggested a lack of fresh consideration for the case at hand.
Judge Thorley emphasized that the copied content meant that the reasoning behind the award was essentially non-existent, raising serious concerns about potential bias. Although the SICC acknowledged the problematic nature of the “copy-paste” issue, it stopped short of labeling it as plagiarism, suggesting it was more a matter of expediency rather than dishonesty.
Despite rejecting the notion that the award violated Singapore’s public policy, which frowns upon plagiarism, the SICC found that the award breached natural justice. The court’s ruling highlighted that the tribunal had improperly used the previous awards as “templates,” making superficial modifications without thoroughly addressing the specific arguments and evidence presented in the current case.
The dispute originated in 2020 between the Indian government’s special purpose vehicle (DJO) and a consortium of three companies, referred to as “Consortium X.” The disagreement arose over additional payments requested by the consortium following a government notification to raise minimum wages. After differences escalated, an arbitral tribunal, including Judge C, was constituted in April 2022 to resolve the matter. However, the November 2023 ruling favored Consortium X, prompting DJO to challenge the award before the SICC.
In its ruling, the SICC outlined several troubling aspects of the tribunal’s process, including the reproduction of arguments and authorities from earlier cases without proper context, the application of the wrong arbitration law, and references to non-existent contractual provisions. The court ultimately concluded that the tribunal’s actions compromised the fairness and impartiality of the award, leading to its nullification.
