CUW & 2 Ors v CUZ
Key facts
| Court | Singapore International Commercial Court |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Vivian Ramsey |
| Charges / claim | Arbitration |
| Counsel | Bird & Bird ATMD LLP, Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC, Twenty Essex, Daniel Chia, Jeanette Wong, Lee Wei Han Shaun, Nakul Dewan, Ng Khim Loong Mark, Pardeep Singh Khosa |
Source: [2023] SGHC(I) 2, Singapore International Commercial Court, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (9)
Parties (4)
Case Significance
CUW and others v CUZ [2023] SGHC(I) 2 is a judgment of the Singapore International Commercial Court, with judgment reserved by Vivian Ramsey IJ and delivered on 6 February 2023 in Originating Application No 1 of 2022. The claimants CUW, CUX and CUY applied to set aside a Final Award dated 11 February 2022 made in a Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) arbitration, invoking s 24 of the International Arbitration Act 1994 and Art 34(2)(b)(ii) of the UNCITRAL Model Law, on the ground that breaches of natural justice occurred in making the Award. The dispute arose from two agreements, including a Share Subscription Agreement dated 25 February 2013, concerning arrangements to provide two power plants in India.
[2023] SGHC(I) 2 explained
CUW & 2 Ors v CUZ ([2023] SGHC(I) 2) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Singapore International Commercial Court on 6 February 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) 2 about?
CUW & 2 Ors v CUZ ([2023] SGHC(I) 2) 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) 2 consider?
The judgment refers to Arbitration Act (Cap 10), Companies Act (Cap 50), Evidence Act (Cap 97), and Indian Contract Act, among other provisions. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
What did the claimants seek in CUW v CUZ [2023] SGHC(I) 2?
Claimants CUW, CUX and CUY sought to set aside a SIAC arbitration Final Award dated 11 February 2022 under s 24 of the International Arbitration Act and Art 34(2)(b)(ii) of the UNCITRAL Model Law, alleging breaches of natural justice in the making of the Award.
What was the underlying dispute in [2023] SGHC(I) 2?
The dispute arose from two agreements concerning arrangements to provide two power plants in India, including a Share Subscription Agreement dated 25 February 2013. Vivian Ramsey IJ of the Singapore International Commercial Court reserved judgment, delivering it on 6 February 2023 in Originating Application No 1 of 2022.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (14)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Legal concepts & references
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2023] SGHC(I) 2)