DNO v DNP

Facts

DNO, the applicant, brought Originating Application No 4 of 2025 to set aside a Singapore International Arbitration Centre award dated 25 July 2024 under section 24 of the International Arbitration Act 1994 and Article 34 of the Model Law. It alleged a breach of natural justice in the arbitration, in the refusal of an amendment to its pleading and in what it said was inconsistent reasoning by the tribunal. DNP, the respondent, had won the arbitration against a registered partnership. The action began in the General Division of the High Court and was transferred to the Singapore International Commercial Court on 3 March 2025.

The respondent contested DNO's standing, saying the partnership was the party to the arbitration agreement and still existed, pointing to GST forms it had lodged. DNO's first affidavit had said only that the partnership converted into DNO, a private limited company, on 30 March 2024 under India's Companies Act 2013. In Summons No 25 of 2025, DNO sought leave to file a second affidavit from its director, with documents, to show the conversion.

Issues

1. Whether the proposed further affidavit was related or relevant to the issues in the case.
2. Whether discretionary factors, including the applicant's delay and inaction, weighed against granting leave.

Holding

The court granted leave to the applicant to file the executed further affidavit on or before 14 April 2025, reserving to the respondent all rights to argue at the hearing that it was inadmissible, deserved little weight or did not establish standing. The respondent was given leave to file a reply affidavit by 18 April 2025, and costs were reserved to the hearing.

Reasoning

On relevance, the respondent's arguments that two entities existed and that DNO had not proved Indian law went to the merits of standing. They might matter on a strike-out or a separate question, but not on an application for leave. On its face the affidavit addressed a live issue, and complex questions of foreign law and expert qualification were left for trial.

On discretion, the court accepted that the onus to prove standing lay on DNO but did not think it unreasonable for DNO to address the point only briefly until the respondent raised it. What weighed against DNO was that, across four case conferences, it gave no sign of filing more evidence and at times indicated it would bring no further applications, and its explanations for the delay were inadequate. Under CZD v CZE [2023] 5 SLR 806, further affidavits require special circumstances.

The court described the issue as finely balanced. It granted leave because the delay was not tactical but the product of muddled thinking; the respondent would not undertake not to enforce the award against DNO; refusal could cause DNO serious prejudice, as the three-month time limit might prevent substituting the partnership; the respondent's prejudice was slight; and the trial date would be preserved.

From the judgment