DIB v DIC

Q: Which legislation does [2024] SGHC 194 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.

[2024] SGHC 194 High Court (General Division) 26 July 2024 HC/OA 888/2023 38 min read

11 cases cited (10 SG, 1 foreign)

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	26 July 2024
Judge	Wong Li Kok, Alex
Charges / claim	Arbitration
Counsel	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP, Wong & Leow LLC, Leck Kwang Hwee Andy, Lee Tze En Chrystal, Max Lim, Sim Daryl Larry, Tan E-Jynn, Tan Jia Xin

Source: [2024] SGHC 194, High Court (General Division), decided 26 July 2024 — eLitigation. Updated 3 July 2026.

Catchwords

Arbitration — Award — Recourse against award — Setting aside — Breach of natural justice

Practice Areas

Arbitration

Judges (1)

Wong Li Kok, Alex Delivered

Counsel (8)

Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Firm Wong & Leow LLC Firm Leck Kwang Hwee Andy Counsel Respondent Lee Tze En Chrystal Counsel Applicant Max Lim Counsel Applicant Sim Daryl Larry Counsel Applicant Tan E-Jynn Counsel Respondent Tan Jia Xin Counsel Respondent

Parties (2)

DIB Applicant DIC Respondent

Case Significance

DIB v DIC [2024] SGHC 194 was a single judgment delivered on 26 July 2024 (reserved after a hearing on 12 June 2024) by Wong Li Kok, Alex JC in the General Division of the High Court, in Originating Application No 888 of 2023. The catchwords cover Arbitration — Award — Recourse against award — Setting aside — Breach of natural justice. The application, HC/OA 888/2023, was brought by the applicant (DIB) to set aside an arbitral award dated 2 June 2023 rendered by Mr Peter Ashford, in an arbitration seated in Singapore conducted under the auspices of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), in which the respondent (DIC) had succeeded.

The court dismissed the application to set aside the award. Wong Li Kok, Alex JC found that none of the alleged breaches raised by the applicant constituted breaches of natural justice that resulted in prejudice warranting setting aside the award. The judgment recorded that the arbitration arose out of a contract dated 16 March 2015 for the supply by the respondent of a confectionery product preparation and sterilisation line, which contained an express condition that the line be able to produce 8,000 litres per hour. The applicant was represented by Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP (including Max Lim), and the respondent by Wong & Leow LLC (including Leck Kwang Hwee Andy).

[2024] SGHC 194 explained

DIB v DIC ([2024] SGHC 194) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 26 July 2024. 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 [2024] SGHC 194 about?

DIB v DIC ([2024] SGHC 194) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2024. Its published catchwords are “Arbitration — Award — Recourse against award — Setting aside — Breach of natural justice”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2024] SGHC 194 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.

Summary

DIB applied to set aside an arbitral award rendered under the auspices of the International Chamber of Commerce in favour of DIC, arising from a contract for the supply of a confectionary product preparation and sterilisation line, on the basis of alleged breaches of natural justice. The General Division of the High Court dismissed the application, finding that none of the alleged breaches constituted breaches of natural justice resulting in prejudice that would warrant setting aside the award, and that the alleged failures would not have altered the outcome in any meaningful way. The court indicated it would hear the parties on costs.

Did the court set aside the arbitral award in DIB v DIC [2024] SGHC 194?

No. In [2024] SGHC 194, Wong Li Kok, Alex JC dismissed the application to set aside the ICC arbitral award dated 2 June 2023, finding that none of the alleged breaches constituted breaches of natural justice resulting in prejudice that would warrant setting aside the award.

What contract was at issue in DIB v DIC [2024] SGHC 194?

According to [2024] SGHC 194, the arbitration arose out of a contract dated 16 March 2015 for the respondent to supply a confectionery product preparation and sterilisation line, with an express condition that the line could produce 8,000 litres per hour.