When seeking to resolve a dispute, parties generally aim for a full and final resolution to the dispute. In arbitration, this takes the form of a final arbitral award. Once a final award is issued, the arbitrator becomes functus officio – he/she no longer has jurisdiction over the dispute and may not issue a further award in relation to the arbitration, save for limited exceptions. This ensures the finality of the arbitration and prevents a party from reopening the dispute.
However, what if an award includes conditions to be met before one party’s liability to pay accrues? Can it still be considered a final award, or would the arbitral tribunal retain jurisdiction to issue a further award if the parties are in dispute over whether the conditions are met? Must the tribunal’s jurisdiction be expressly reserved, or can jurisdiction be retained by implication?
These questions were answered by the Court of Appeal (“CA“) in Voltas Ltd v York International Pte Ltd [2024] SGCA 12, where it found that (i) a conditional award may be a final award, and (ii) a tribunal cannot reserve its jurisdiction by implication. The respondent was successfully represented by Ng Kim Beng (Deputy Managing Partner), Benny Santoso (Senior Associate), and Timothy James Chong (Associate) of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP.
In this article, we look into the CA’s basis for determining when a conditional award is also a final award, and the rationale behind its finding that an arbitrator may not impliedly reserve his/her jurisdiction after issuing a final award.
Visit Arbitration Asia for insights from our thought leaders across Asia concerning arbitration and other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, ranging from legal and case law developments to market updates and many more.
For more information, click here to read the full Legal Update.
