DJK & 2 Ors v DJN

Q: Which legislation does [2024] SGHC 309 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 309 High Court (General Division) 3 December 2024 HC/OA 274/2024 28 min read

5 cases cited Cited by 1 case

Outcome

Application dismissed

I dismissed the application and ordered the Claimants to pay costs fixed at $33,000 all in.

Source: [2024] SGHC 309, High Court (General Division), decided 3 December 2024. Read directly from the judgment.

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	3 December 2024
Judge	Chua Lee Ming
Charges / claim	Arbitration
Outcome	Application dismissed
Sentence / award	$33,000
Counsel	Chua & Partners LLP, Colin Seow Chambers LLC, Nine Yards Chambers LLC, Colin Seow, Nichol Yeo, Sheryl Koh, Siddartha Bodi, Violet Huang

Source: [2024] SGHC 309, High Court (General Division), decided 3 December 2024 — eLitigation. Updated 3 July 2026.

Catchwords

Arbitration — Award — Recourse against award — Setting aside — Breach of natural justice — Whether tribunal exhibited apparent bias in conduct of proceedings and in award

Practice Areas

Arbitration

Judges (1)

Chua Lee Ming Delivered

Counsel (8)

Chua & Partners LLP Firm Colin Seow Chambers LLC Firm Nine Yards Chambers LLC Firm Colin Seow Counsel Defendant Nichol Yeo Counsel Defendant Sheryl Koh Counsel Claimant Siddartha Bodi Counsel Claimant Violet Huang Counsel Defendant

Parties (4)

DJK Claimant DJL Claimant DJM Claimant DJN Defendant

Case Significance

DJK and others v DJN [2024] SGHC 309 is a grounds of decision of the General Division of the High Court (Originating Application No 274 of 2024) by Chua Lee Ming J, delivered on 3 December 2024. The claimants (DJK, DJL and DJM) applied to set aside an arbitral award on the ground of apparent bias. The arbitration, seated in Singapore, was administered by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) under the SIAC Arbitration Rules (6th Edition, 1 August 2016) before a sole arbitrator. The claimants had filed a Notice of Challenge to the SIAC Court seeking the arbitrator's removal for apparent bias, which was rejected, after which the arbitration proceeded without their participation. The claimants did not challenge that decision, and after the final award was issued they brought this application to set it aside. In the proceedings the Defendant had been the claimant in the arbitration and the Claimants were the respondents; the application turned on whether the tribunal exhibited apparent bias in the conduct of proceedings and in the award.

[2024] SGHC 309 explained

DJK & 2 Ors v DJN ([2024] SGHC 309) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 3 December 2024. 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 [2024] SGHC 309 about?

DJK & 2 Ors v DJN ([2024] SGHC 309) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2024. Its published catchwords are “Arbitration — Award — Recourse against award — Setting aside — Breach of natural justice — Whether tribunal exhibited apparent bias in conduct of proceedings and in award”, 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 309 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 [2024] SGHC 309?

Within this corpus, [2024] SGHC 309 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.

Summary

The claimants DJK, DJL and DJM applied in the General Division of the High Court to set aside a Singapore-seated SIAC arbitral award on the ground that the sole arbitrator had exhibited apparent bias in the conduct of the proceedings and in the award. The arbitration arose from a loan agreement under which the defendant sought repayment from the first claimant as borrower, with the second and third claimants as guarantors; the claimants had earlier unsuccessfully challenged the arbitrator before the SIAC Court and did not participate further in the arbitration. Chua Lee Ming J dismissed the application, finding that the claimants' arguments, whether taken individually or together, did not show that the arbitrator had prejudged the merits, and ordered the claimants to pay costs fixed at $33,000.

What did the High Court consider in DJK and others v DJN [2024] SGHC 309?

In [2024] SGHC 309, Chua Lee Ming J considered an application to set aside a SIAC-administered arbitral award on the ground of apparent bias, after the claimants' Notice of Challenge to remove the sole arbitrator had been rejected by the SIAC Court.

Can an arbitral award be set aside for apparent bias in Singapore ([2024] SGHC 309)?

DJK and others v DJN [2024] SGHC 309 concerned an application to set aside a Singapore-seated SIAC arbitral award for breach of natural justice, on the ground that the tribunal exhibited apparent bias in the conduct of the proceedings and in the award, decided by Chua Lee Ming J.