DBL v DBM

DBL agreed to sell steel slabs to DBM under an English-law contract providing for loading at a port in Saudi Arabia and for arbitration in Singapore under the rules of the Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration. The bill of lading showed loading at Dammam Port, and DBM's bank paid DBL under a letter of credit. DBM alleged the goods were in fact loaded in Iran, a sanctioned jurisdiction. At DBM's request DBL gave an indemnity bond confirming loading at Dammam, and DBM then cancelled the contract. The parties later set part of the sum owed against a nickel supply deal, and DBL twice signed balance confirmations but paid nothing.

DBM began arbitration in July 2020. DBL denied breach, said the bond was an unenforceable gratuitous promise, and pleaded limitation. In closing submissions, DBM's counsel used the Searoutes website to plot the vessel's route from Dammam to its recorded position the next morning, arguing it could not have loaded at Dammam on 19 September 2013. The tribunal found the goods were not loaded in Saudi Arabia, held the claim not time-barred, and awarded DBM the outstanding balance. In Originating Application No 79 of 2023, DBL applied under s 24(b) of the International Arbitration Act 1994 to set aside the award for breach of natural justice.

1. Whether allowing the Searoutes demonstration in closing, allegedly contrary to the hearing protocol, denied DBL a fair opportunity to respond.
2. Whether the tribunal failed to consider DBL's limitation defence.
3. Whether the tribunal's failure to address the enforceability of the bond caused DBL prejudice.

Applying Soh Beng Tee & Co Pte Ltd v Fairmount Development Pte Ltd [2007] 3 SLR(R) 86, the court stressed the high threshold and the need for real prejudice. The tribunal had not relied on the demonstration alone; an email saying DBL had paid the shipper in Iran and DBL's own witness evidence that the vessel stopped in Saudi Arabia on later dates independently supported its finding. DBL offered no evidence that gaps in the tracking data would have changed the outcome. In any event the data and arithmetic were uncontroversial, and DBL never objected, took only a short break, and stayed silent for more than a year, conduct that China Machine New Energy Corp v Jaguar Energy Guatemala LLC and another [2020] 1 SLR 695 does not permit.

The award showed the tribunal considered limitation and rejected it; failing to explain each step under the English Limitation Act was at most an error of law, not a failure to consider.

The tribunal did not address the bond's enforceability, but this caused no prejudice. Both of DBM's heads of claim rested on the same breach, failure to load in Saudi Arabia, and sought the same principal sum; only the consequential losses differed, and those were refused as too remote. The result would have been the same on the sales contract alone.

The High Court dismissed DBL's application to set aside the award, holding that none of its grounds met the high threshold for a breach of natural justice.