DTM v DTN

Q: Which legislation does [2026] SGHC 68 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.

[2026] SGHC 68 High Court (General Division) 30 March 2026 HC/OA 802/2025 37 min read

6 cases cited

Outcome

Application dismissed

I dismiss the application to set aside the Award based on s 24(b) of the IAA.

Source: [2026] SGHC 68, High Court (General Division), decided 30 March 2026. Read directly from the judgment.

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	30 March 2026
Judge	Dedar Singh Gill
Charges / claim	Arbitration
Outcome	Application dismissed
Counsel	AsiaLegal LLC, Kelvin Chia Partnership, Aditya Bhattacharya, Murali Rajagopal, Tan Thye Hoe Timothy, Yong Manling Jasmine

Source: [2026] SGHC 68, High Court (General Division), decided 30 March 2026 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Arbitration — Award — Recourse against award — Remission Arbitration — Award — Recourse against award — Setting aside

Practice Areas

Arbitration

Judges (1)

Dedar Singh Gill Delivered

Counsel (6)

AsiaLegal LLC Firm Kelvin Chia Partnership Firm Aditya Bhattacharya Counsel Respondent Murali Rajagopal Counsel Respondent Tan Thye Hoe Timothy Counsel Respondent Yong Manling Jasmine Counsel Applicant

Parties (2)

DTM Applicant DTN Respondent

Case Significance

DTM v DTN [2026] SGHC 68 is a High Court General Division judgment delivered by Dedar Singh Gill J on 30 March 2026, dismissing an application by DTM (a manufacturer and exporter of iron ore fines) to set aside an arbitral award under s 24(b) of the International Arbitration Act 1994, alternatively to remit it under Art 34(4) of the UNCITRAL Model Law. The underlying contract, dated 19 December 2023, required DTM to supply 55,000 wet metric tonnes of iron ore fines (56% or minimum 55% iron content) to DTN, a commodity trader. DTM alleged a breach of natural justice by the tribunal; Dedar Singh Gill J dismissed the application. DTM was represented by Yong Manling Jasmine of Kelvin Chia Partnership; DTN by Murali Rajagopal, Aditya Bhattacharya, and Tan Thye Hoe Timothy of AsiaLegal LLC.

[2026] SGHC 68 explained

DTM v DTN ([2026] SGHC 68) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 30 March 2026. 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 [2026] SGHC 68 about?

DTM v DTN ([2026] SGHC 68) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Arbitration — Award — Recourse against award — Remission” and “Arbitration — Award — Recourse against award — Setting aside”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2026] SGHC 68 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

DTM, a manufacturer and exporter of iron ore fines, applied to set aside an arbitral award issued against it in favour of DTN, a commodity trader, arising from a dispute over a contract for the sale of 55,000 wet metric tonnes of iron ore fines at a base price of US$95–96 per dry metric tonne, alleging a breach of natural justice by the arbitral tribunal. In the alternative, DTM sought remission of the award under Art 34(4) of the UNCITRAL Model Law. The High Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of natural justice sufficient to warrant setting aside, and accordingly the question of remission did not arise.

What was the outcome of DTM v DTN [2026] SGHC 68?

Dedar Singh Gill J of the High Court dismissed on 30 March 2026 an application by iron ore fines manufacturer DTM to set aside an arbitral award under s 24(b) of the International Arbitration Act 1994, rejecting the natural justice challenge arising from a 55,000 wet metric tonne iron ore supply contract dated 19 December 2023.