DLV & Anor v DLX & 3 Ors

[2025] SGHC 29 High Court (General Division) 21 February 2025 • HC/OA 1033/2024 • 55 min read

6 cases cited

Catchwords

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

Practice Areas

Arbitration

Judges (1)

Kristy Tan Delivered

Counsel (9)

Providence Law Asia LLC Firm TSMP Law Corporation Firm Abraham Vergis Counsel Applicant Chia Wan Lu Counsel Respondent Liu Enning Counsel Applicant Ngo Wei Shing Counsel Applicant Nguyen Vu Lan Counsel Respondent Nicole Sim Counsel Respondent Thio Shen Yi Counsel Respondent

Parties (6)

DLV Applicant DLW Applicant DLX Respondent DLY Respondent DLZ Respondent DMA Respondent

Case Significance

[2025] SGHC 29 is a High Court (General Division) decision dated 21 February 2025 concerning Arbitration, specifically addressing award. The judgment was delivered by Kristy Tan. The case was brought by DLV and others (applicant) against DLX and others (respondent). Legal representation was provided by Providence Law Asia LLC and TSMP Law Corporation. The judgment cites 6 cases and references 4 statutory provisions, including the Arbitration Act, the Companies Act, and the Indian Companies Act.

Summary

Private equity investors sought to enforce an arbitral award requiring company promoters to facilitate exit rights under a shareholders' agreement, while the promoters sought to set aside the award on grounds of breach of natural justice. The court dismissed the setting-aside application, finding the tribunal had addressed the promoters' defences including the buy-back defence, and that the promoters had failed to demonstrate any breach of the fair hearing rule.

What was decided in [2025] SGHC 29?

[2025] SGHC 29 (DLV & Anor v DLX & 3 Ors) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 21 February 2025 addressing Arbitration, specifically award. The judgment was delivered by Kristy Tan.

Who were the parties in DLV & Anor v DLX & 3 Ors?

The applicant in [2025] SGHC 29 was DLV, DLW, and the respondent was DLX, DLY. Legal representation included Providence Law Asia LLC and TSMP Law Corporation. The case was decided on 21 February 2025 in the High Court (General Division).