DBO & 3 Ors v DBP & 4 Ors

Q: Which legislation does [2023] SGHC(I) 21 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) 21 Singapore International Commercial Court 20 November 2023 SIC/OA 6/2023 32 min read

7 cases cited Cited by 1 case

Outcome

Application dismissed

we dismissed the application.

Source: [2023] SGHC(I) 21, Singapore International Commercial Court, decided 20 November 2023. Read directly from the judgment.

Key facts

Court	Singapore International Commercial Court
Decided	20 November 2023
Judges	Chua Lee Ming, Thomas Bathurst, Zhang Yongjian
Charges / claim	Arbitration
Outcome	Application dismissed
Counsel	Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP, Providence Law Asia LLC, Setia Law LLC, Bethel Chan Ruiyi, Hannah Chua, Leo Zhi Wei, Mazie Tan, Ong Tun Wei Danny, Reuben Gavin Peter, Yoong Joon Wei Aaron, Zhuo Jiaxiang

Source: [2023] SGHC(I) 21, Singapore International Commercial Court, decided 20 November 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Arbitration — Award — Recourse against award — Setting aside

Practice Areas

Arbitration

Case Significance

DBO and others v DBP and others [2023] SGHC(I) 21 is grounds of decision of the Singapore International Commercial Court delivered by Chua Lee Ming J, sitting with Thomas Bathurst IJ and Zhang Yongjian IJ, in Originating Application No 6 of 2023. The applicants sought to set aside a partial award dated 30 January 2023 issued in a SIAC arbitration seated in Singapore, which had granted early dismissal under Rule 29 of the SIAC Rules in favour of the respondents. A key question was whether the borrowers and guarantors under a facility agreement could invoke the doctrine of frustration arising from the COVID-19 pandemic to escape repayment; the tribunal held they could not. The court dismissed the setting-aside application on 21 August 2023. The grounds reference the Arbitration Act and the International Arbitration Act and cite 7 Singapore authorities.

[2023] SGHC(I) 21 explained

DBO & 3 Ors v DBP & 4 Ors ([2023] SGHC(I) 21) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Singapore International Commercial Court on 20 November 2023. It is categorised under Arbitration. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 1 other reported Singapore judgment, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. 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) 21 about?

DBO & 3 Ors v DBP & 4 Ors ([2023] SGHC(I) 21) 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) 21 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.

How influential is [2023] SGHC(I) 21?

Within this corpus, [2023] SGHC(I) 21 has been cited by 1 later reported Singapore judgment. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.

What was DBO and others v DBP and others [2023] SGHC(I) 21 about?

It was a Singapore International Commercial Court application in Originating Application No 6 of 2023 to set aside a partial award that granted early dismissal under Rule 29 of the SIAC Rules; the court dismissed the setting-aside application.

Did the frustration argument succeed in [2023] SGHC(I) 21?

No. The arbitral tribunal held that the borrowers and guarantors under a facility agreement could not rely on the doctrine of frustration arising from the COVID-19 pandemic to escape repayment, and the SICC dismissed the application to set aside that partial award.