CYW v CYX

Q: Which legislation does [2023] SGHC(I) 10 consider?

The judgment refers to Arbitration Act (Cap 10), International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A), International Arbitration Act (Cap 10), and UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (as implemented by the Singapore International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2023] SGHC(I) 10 Singapore International Commercial Court 31 May 2023 SIC/OA 3/2022 54 min read

6 cases cited (5 SG, 1 foreign)

Outcome

Application dismissed

I therefore dismiss the application.

Source: [2023] SGHC(I) 10, Singapore International Commercial Court, decided 31 May 2023. Read directly from the judgment.

Key facts

Court	Singapore International Commercial Court
Decided	31 May 2023
Judge	Thomas Bathurst
Charges / claim	Arbitration
Outcome	Application dismissed
Counsel	A. Rohim Noor Lila LLP, Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP, Mirandah Law LLP, Abdul Rohim bin Sarip, Aw Sze Min, Herman Jeremiah, Lee Qiu Li, Mohamed Hashim H Sirajudeen, Suhaimi bin Lazim, Tan Yi Xi Joie

Source: [2023] SGHC(I) 10, Singapore International Commercial Court, decided 31 May 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Arbitration — Award — Recourse against award — Setting aside

Practice Areas

Arbitration

Judges (1)

Thomas Bathurst Delivered

Counsel (10)

A. Rohim Noor Lila LLP Firm Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP Firm Mirandah Law LLP Firm Abdul Rohim bin Sarip Counsel Applicant Aw Sze Min Counsel Respondent Herman Jeremiah Counsel Respondent Lee Qiu Li Counsel Respondent Mohamed Hashim H Sirajudeen Counsel Applicant Suhaimi bin Lazim Counsel Applicant Tan Yi Xi Joie Counsel Respondent

Parties (2)

CYW Applicant CYX Respondent

Case Significance

CYW v CYX [2023] SGHC(I) 10 is a reserved judgment of Thomas Bathurst IJ in the Singapore International Commercial Court, heard on 15 March 2023 and delivered on 31 May 2023 in Originating Application No 3 of 2022. By HC/OA 491/2022, filed on 26 August 2022 and later transferred to the SICC as SIC/OA 3/2022, the applicant CYW sought to set aside the Final Award dated 16 May 2022 (Award No 67 of 2022) made in a Singapore-seated arbitration administered by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre under the SIAC Rules (6th Ed, 1 August 2016). CYW, a company incorporated in Indonesia and a state-owned entity in which the Government of Indonesia effectively held 89.6% of the shares, relied on s 24(b) of the International Arbitration Act 1994 and Art 34(2)(a)(ii) of the UNCITRAL Model Law to challenge the award against the respondent CYX.

[2023] SGHC(I) 10 explained

CYW v CYX ([2023] SGHC(I) 10) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Singapore International Commercial Court on 31 May 2023. It is categorised under Arbitration. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2023] SGHC(I) 10 about?

CYW v CYX ([2023] SGHC(I) 10) is a Singapore International Commercial Court decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Arbitration — Award — Recourse against award — Setting aside”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2023] SGHC(I) 10 consider?

The judgment refers to Arbitration Act (Cap 10), International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A), International Arbitration Act (Cap 10), and UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (as implemented by the Singapore International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

What was CYW v CYX [2023] SGHC(I) 10 about?

It was a setting-aside application before Thomas Bathurst IJ in the Singapore International Commercial Court, decided on 31 May 2023, in which CYW sought to set aside the Final Award dated 16 May 2022 made in a SIAC arbitration against CYX.

On what grounds did CYW seek to set aside the award in [2023] SGHC(I) 10?

CYW, an Indonesian state-owned company in which the government effectively held 89.6% of shares, relied on s 24(b) of the International Arbitration Act 1994 and Art 34(2)(a)(ii) of the UNCITRAL Model Law to challenge Award No 67 of 2022.