CZQ & Anor v CZS

Q: Which legislation does [2023] SGHC(I) 16 consider?

The judgment refers to Arbitration Act (Cap 10), International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A), and International Arbitration Act (Cap 10). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2023] SGHC(I) 16 Singapore International Commercial Court 27 October 2023 SIC/OA 4/2023 19 min read

6 cases cited (4 SG, 2 foreign)

Key facts

Court	Singapore International Commercial Court
Decided	27 October 2023
Judges	Andre Maniam, Sir Henry Bernard Eder, Zhang Yongjian
Charges / claim	Arbitration
Counsel	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP, TSMP Law Corporation, David Isidore Tan, Koh En Da Matthew, Nikita Garg, Poon Kin Mun Kelvin, Thara Rubini Gopalan, Thio Shen Yi, Timothy James Chong Wen An

Source: [2023] SGHC(I) 16, Singapore International Commercial Court, decided 27 October 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Arbitration — Agreement — Condition precedent to arbitration

Practice Areas

Arbitration

Judges (3)

Andre Maniam Delivered Sir Henry Bernard Eder Coram Zhang Yongjian Coram

Counsel (9)

Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Firm TSMP Law Corporation Firm David Isidore Tan Counsel Applicant Koh En Da Matthew Counsel Applicant Nikita Garg Counsel Respondent Poon Kin Mun Kelvin Counsel Applicant Thara Rubini Gopalan Counsel Respondent Thio Shen Yi Counsel Respondent Timothy James Chong Wen An Counsel Applicant

Parties (3)

CZQ Applicant CZR Applicant CZS Respondent

Case Significance

CZQ and another v CZS [2023] SGHC(I) 16 is a grounds of decision of the Singapore International Commercial Court, comprising Andre Maniam J, Sir Henry Bernard Eder IJ and Zhang Yongjian IJ, with Andre Maniam J delivering the judgment of the court on 27 October 2023 in Originating Application No 4 of 2023. The respondents to an arbitration applied under section 10 of the International Arbitration Act 1994 for a determination that the arbitral tribunal had no jurisdiction, contending that an amicable settlement procedure prescribed in Sub-Clause 20.5 of a construction contract had not been complied with as a condition precedent to arbitration. The court agreed with the tribunal that it had jurisdiction.

[2023] SGHC(I) 16 explained

CZQ & Anor v CZS ([2023] SGHC(I) 16) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Singapore International Commercial Court on 27 October 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) 16 about?

CZQ & Anor v CZS ([2023] SGHC(I) 16) is a Singapore International Commercial Court decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Arbitration — Agreement — Condition precedent to arbitration”, 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) 16 consider?

The judgment refers to Arbitration Act (Cap 10), International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A), and International Arbitration Act (Cap 10). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

What earlier Singapore cases does [2023] SGHC(I) 16 cite?

Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2023] SGHC 16. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.

Summary

The respondents to an arbitration applied to the Singapore International Commercial Court under section 10 of the International Arbitration Act 1994 for a determination that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction, arguing that an amicable settlement procedure in Sub-Clause 20.5 of a construction contract was a condition precedent to arbitration. The court agreed with the tribunal that the procedure was not a condition precedent and dismissed the application.

What was CZQ and another v CZS [2023] SGHC(I) 16 about?

It was an application in the Singapore International Commercial Court under section 10 of the International Arbitration Act 1994 for a determination that an arbitral tribunal had no jurisdiction, because a contractual amicable settlement procedure had allegedly not been complied with, decided on 27 October 2023.

How did the court rule in [2023] SGHC(I) 16?

The Singapore International Commercial Court agreed with the arbitral tribunal that it had jurisdiction, rejecting the argument that the amicable settlement procedure in Sub-Clause 20.5 of the construction contract was a condition precedent to commencing arbitration under Sub-Clause 20.6.