CYE v CYF

Q: Which legislation does [2023] SGHC 275 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 275 High Court (General Division) 29 September 2023 HC/OA 642/2022 90 min read

19 cases cited (17 SG, 2 foreign) Cited by 5 cases

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	29 September 2023
Judge	S Mohan
Charges / claim	Arbitration
Counsel	LVM Law Chambers LLC, Wong & Leow LLC, Emmanuel Duncan Chua, Irvin Ho Jia Xian, Jean Chan Lay Koon, Lee Sien Liang Joseph, Lee Yu Lun Darrell, Lim Jia Ren, Lok Vi Ming, Mohammad Haireez bin Mohameed Jufferie, Muk Chen Yeen Jonathan, Nandakumar Ponniya Servai, Thong Ying Xuan, Wong Tjen Wee

Source: [2023] SGHC 275, High Court (General Division), decided 29 September 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Arbitration — Award — Recourse against award — Setting aside

Practice Areas

Arbitration

Judges (1)

S Mohan Delivered

Counsel (14)

LVM Law Chambers LLC Firm Wong & Leow LLC Firm Emmanuel Duncan Chua Counsel Defendant Irvin Ho Jia Xian Counsel Defendant Jean Chan Lay Koon Counsel Claimant Lee Sien Liang Joseph Counsel Claimant Lee Yu Lun Darrell Counsel Defendant Lim Jia Ren Counsel Defendant Lok Vi Ming Counsel Claimant Mohammad Haireez bin Mohameed Jufferie Counsel Claimant Muk Chen Yeen Jonathan Counsel Claimant Nandakumar Ponniya Servai Counsel Defendant Thong Ying Xuan Counsel Claimant Wong Tjen Wee Counsel Defendant

Parties (2)

CYE Claimant CYF Defendant

Case Significance

CYE v CYF [2023] SGHC 275 is a reserved judgment of S Mohan J in the General Division of the High Court, delivered on 29 September 2023 in Originating Application No 642 of 2022. The claimant, a Singapore-incorporated company engaged in energy trading and the wholesale distribution of petroleum products, applied under s 48 of the Arbitration Act 2001 (2020 Rev Ed) to set aside a Final Award rendered by a sole arbitrator under the auspices of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, in a dispute against the defendant, a Singapore company engaged in the commercial storage of petroleum products. The court had ordered the parties' identities and certain details anonymised, and S Mohan J dismissed the claimant's application to set aside the Award.

[2023] SGHC 275 explained

CYE v CYF ([2023] SGHC 275) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 29 September 2023. It is categorised under Arbitration. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 5 other reported Singapore judgments, 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 275 about?

CYE v CYF ([2023] SGHC 275) is a High Court (General Division) 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 275 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 275?

Within this corpus, [2023] SGHC 275 has been cited by 5 later reported Singapore judgments. 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.

Summary

CYE, a Singapore energy trading company, applied under s 48 of the Arbitration Act 2001 to set aside a final award rendered by a sole SIAC arbitrator in a dispute with CYF, a petroleum storage company, arising from a storage and terminal facilities agreement. The parties' identities were anonymised. S Mohan J found that none of the grounds relied on to set aside the award succeeded, and dismissed the application.

What was CYE v CYF [2023] SGHC 275 about?

It was an application by the claimant before S Mohan J, decided on 29 September 2023, to set aside a Final Award of a sole arbitrator under s 48 of the Arbitration Act 2001, in an anonymised dispute between two Singapore petroleum-sector companies.

How did the court rule in [2023] SGHC 275?

S Mohan J dismissed the claimant's application under s 48 of the Arbitration Act 2001 to set aside the Final Award rendered by a sole arbitrator under the auspices of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre; the parties' identities were anonymised.

Statutes Cited

Arbitration Act (Cap 10) Cases on this Act →

s 48

International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A) Cases on this Act →

s 24(b)

Cases Cited (19)

SG (1)

[2022] SGHC 17

SLR (16)

[2007] 3 SLR(R) 86 [2008] 3 SLR(R) 871 [2010] 1 SLR 733 [2013] 1 SLR 125 [2013] 4 SLR 1169 [2014] 1 SLR 814 [2015] 3 SLR 488 [2016] 1 SLR 859 [2016] 2 SLR 597 [2016] 4 SLR 768 [2018] 5 SLR 549 [2021] 1 SLR 1045 [2021] 3 SLR 725 [2022] 1 SLR 1080 [2022] 1 SLR 505 [2022] 2 SLR 918

UK (2)

[1986] 2 Ch 743 [2015] UKSC 23