DSQ v DSR

[2026] SGHC 67 High Court (General Division) 31 March 2026 • HC/OA 1062/2025 • 82 min read

15 cases cited (14 SG, 1 foreign)

Catchwords

Arbitration — Award — Recourse against award — Setting aside — Jurisdiction Arbitration — Award — Recourse against award — Setting aside — Infra petita challenge Arbitration — Award — Recourse against award — Setting aside — Whether failure to comply with pre-arbitration procedures went to admissibility or jurisdiction Arbitration — Award — Recourse against award — Setting aside — Whether tribunal breached natural justice by depriving party of reasonable opportunity to respond to case against it

Practice Areas

Arbitration

Judges (1)

Andre Maniam Delivered

Counsel (12)

Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Firm WongPartnership LLP Firm Daniel Gaw Wai Ming Counsel Plaintiff Divyesh Menon Counsel Defendant Ho Linming Counsel Defendant Koh Swee Yen Counsel Plaintiff Ku Chern Ying Vanessa Counsel Defendant Ooi Shu Min Counsel Plaintiff Pang Yi Ching Alessa Counsel Plaintiff Poon Kin Mun Kelvin Counsel Defendant Shawn Ang De Xian Counsel Plaintiff Vellayappan Balasubramaniyam Counsel Defendant

Parties (2)

DSQ Plaintiff DSR Defendant

Case Significance

DSQ v DSR [2026] SGHC 67 is a High Court General Division judgment delivered by Andre Maniam J on 31 March 2026, concerning an application by an employer (DSQ) to set aside an arbitral award issued on 2 April 2025 in favour of a contractor (DSR) arising from disputes under a design-and-build contract for a railway project. The tribunal — chaired by Sir Antony Edwards-Stuart, with Edwin Glasgow CBE QC and Harish Salve QC as co-arbitrators — issued a Decision and Addendum on 25 June 2025 before DSQ applied to court on 25 September 2025, raising a jurisdictional challenge and four natural justice grounds. The court addressed whether non-compliance with pre-arbitration procedures went to admissibility or jurisdiction, and whether the tribunal deprived DSQ of a reasonable opportunity to respond. DSQ was represented by Koh Swee Yen, Daniel Gaw Wai Ming, Ooi Shu Min, Pang Yi Ching Alessa, and Shawn Ang De Xian of WongPartnership LLP; DSR by Vellayappan Balasubramaniyam, Divyesh Menon, Ho Linming, Ku Chern Ying Vanessa, and Poon Kin Mun Kelvin of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP.

Summary

An employer under a design-and-build contract for a railway project applied to set aside an arbitral award issued in favour of the contractor, contending that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the contractor had not complied with the pre-arbitration dispute resolution procedure in Clause 20 of the General Conditions of Contract, and that the tribunal had breached natural justice in four respects. The court considered whether non-compliance with the pre-arbitral procedure went to jurisdiction or admissibility, and whether any procedural irregularities had caused real prejudice. The application to set aside the award was dismissed in its entirety.

What arbitration setting-aside grounds were considered in DSQ v DSR [2026] SGHC 67?

Andre Maniam J of the High Court determined on 31 March 2026 whether an employer could set aside a 2 April 2025 arbitral award on grounds that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction and breached natural justice in four respects, including whether failure to comply with pre-arbitration procedures went to admissibility or jurisdiction.

Statutes Cited

Arbitration Act (Cap 10)

International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A)

s 10

Cases Cited (15)

SG (2)

[2023] SGHC 69 [2025] SGHC 255

SLR (12)

[2001] 2 SLR 1674 [2013] 1 SLR 12530 [2014] 1 SLR 130 [2014] 1 SLR 372 [2015] 3 SLR 488 [2019] 1 SLR 263 [2019] 2 SLR 131 [2020] 2 SLR 453 [2021] 1 SLR 276 [2022] 2 SLR 23 [2025] 1 SLR 806 [2025] 4 SLR 308

HK (1)

[2023] HKCFA 16

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.

Read on eLitigation

Source: eLitigation ([2026] SGHC 67)