DDI v DDJ & Anor

[2024] SGCA 46 Court of Appeal 30 October 2024 • CA/CA 22/2024 ( CA/SUM 28/2024 ) • 15 min read

6 cases cited Cited by 1 case

Catchwords

Civil Procedure — Inherent powers Arbitration — Confidentiality — Privacy

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure Arbitration

Judges (3)

Belinda Ang Saw Ean Delivered Steven Chong Coram Sundaresh Menon Coram

Counsel (8)

Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Firm WongPartnership LLP Firm Chang Man Phing Jenny Counsel Applicant Devathas Satianathan Counsel Respondent Goh Sher Hwyn Rebecca Counsel Applicant Ho Pei Shien Melanie Counsel Applicant Louis Lau Yi Hang Counsel Respondent Thawdar Soe Moe @ The Sandi Tun Counsel Respondent

Parties (3)

Gevali Pte Ltd Respondent Karan Chandur Tilani Applicant Maarten Hein Bernard Koedijk Respondent

Case Significance

Karan Chandur Tilani v Maarten Hein Bernard Koedijk and another [2024] SGCA 46 was a decision of the Court of Appeal (Civil Appeal No 22 of 2024, Summons No 28 of 2024), with the grounds delivered by Belinda Ang Saw Ean JCA on 30 October 2024; the coram comprised Sundaresh Menon CJ, Steven Chong JCA and Belinda Ang Saw Ean JCA. The underlying appeal, CA 22, arose from the General Division of the High Court's decision in DDI v DDJ and another [2024] SGHC 68, where the judge had refused the appellant's application to set aside an arbitral award under s 48 of the Arbitration Act 2001 (2020 Rev Ed) on the grounds of excess of jurisdiction, bias, and breach of the fair hearing rule. By Summons No 28 of 2024, brought by the appellant Mr Karan Chandur Tilani on 12 July 2024, he sought orders that information relating to CA 22 not be published, that any related written judgments be amended to conceal the parties' identities, and that the court file be sealed, raising issues of arbitration confidentiality and privacy and the court's inherent powers.

Summary

In this contested application (SUM 28) within a civil appeal arising from a refused attempt to set aside an arbitral award, the appellant sought orders that information relating to the appeal not be published, that related judgments conceal the parties' identities, and that the court file be sealed to preserve the confidentiality of the arbitration. The court noted that the arbitral award had already been disclosed and become part of the court record in separate, non-arbitration-related proceedings without any sealing order. Holding that the situation favoured the principle of open justice over privacy and that the confidentiality of the arbitration was no longer intact, the court dismissed SUM 28 and fixed costs at $6,000 payable by the appellant to the respondents.

What was sought in Summons No 28 of 2024 in Karan Chandur Tilani v Maarten Hein Bernard Koedijk [2024] SGCA 46?

The appellant, Mr Karan Chandur Tilani, sought orders that information relating to Civil Appeal No 22 of 2024 not be published, that related written judgments be amended to conceal the parties' identities, and that the court file be sealed, raising arbitration confidentiality and the court's inherent powers.

What did the underlying appeal in [2024] SGCA 46 concern?

Civil Appeal No 22 of 2024 arose from DDI v DDJ and another [2024] SGHC 68, where the High Court refused to set aside an arbitral award under s 48 of the Arbitration Act 2001 on grounds of excess of jurisdiction, bias, and breach of the fair hearing rule.