<center><p><span class="news-text_medium">Case:</span> <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Vietnam Oil and Gas Group v Joint Stock Company (Power Machines – ZTL, LMZ, Electrosila Energomachexport) [2025] SGCA 50</span> (10 October 2025)</p></center>
The Singapore Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s decision to remit an arbitral award that had been found to breach the rules of natural justice. While agreeing that a breach occurred, the Court held that remission was inappropriate due to the seriousness of the defect and the consequent lack of confidence in the tribunal’s ability to reconsider the matter impartially.
In <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Vietnam Oil and Gas Group v Joint Stock Company (Power Machines – ZTL, LMZ, Electrosila Energomachexport)</span>, the Court of Appeal ruled that remission is not an automatic or suitable remedy in all instances of procedural unfairness. The decision provides important guidance on when courts should decline to remit fundamentally flawed awards.
Background
The dispute arose from arbitral proceedings in which the tribunal made findings on liability that were later challenged for violating the fair hearing rule. The Singapore High Court previously determined that the tribunal had breached natural justice by relying on a line of reasoning that had not been put to the parties. Rather than setting aside the award, the High Court remitted it to the tribunal for reconsideration of the affected issues.
The Court of Appeal agreed that a breach of natural justice had occurred but concluded that remission was inappropriate in this case. Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon emphasised that remission under the International Arbitration Act 1994 should only be granted where the identified defect can be meaningfully cured without undermining confidence in the tribunal’s fairness.
The Court highlighted several key factors for determining the suitability of remission:
Applying these considerations, the Court found that the defect in question was serious and central to the tribunal’s reasoning. The tribunal had ruled on an issue unrelated to the parties’ submissions or expert evidence, amounting to a material breach. Even if the matter were remitted, there would remain a real risk of apparent bias or prejudgment and the Respondent would need to substantially amend its defence for the issue to be heard properly.
The judgment reinforces that remission is not always an appropriate remedy where a serious breach of natural justice calls into question the integrity of the tribunal itself. The ruling provides a clear framework for assessing when remission should be denied, signalling that tribunals found to have materially deviated from fair process may lose the confidence required for further consideration of the dispute.
