Singapore High Court Determines: How Final is a “Final Arbitral Award”?

The finality of an arbitral award is a crucial issue. After all, no party desires to incur further legal costs and expend more time on an outcome that may be re-litigated or otherwise disturbed.

Accordingly, when an arbitrator issues an arbitral award with conditional reliefs, but bearing the title “Final Award”, are the parties entitled to rely on it as being final? Has the arbitrator been rendered functus officio (that is, no longer in possession of further authority after completing his/her intended function), or may the arbitrator render a further award?

In York International Pte Ltd v Voltas Ltd [2022] SGHC 153 (“York“), the plaintiff applied under section 21(9) of the Arbitration Act 2001 (“Act“) for the Court’s decision that the Arbitrator (“Arbitrator“) was functus officio after issuing an arbitral award that included certain conditional reliefs. Finding in favour of the plaintiff, the Singapore High Court found that the arbitral award was indeed final and the Arbitrator was functus officio. In coming to its decision, the Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff’s application fell within section 21(9) of the Act or was otherwise barred;
2. If the plaintiff’s application was not to be barred, whether the Arbitrator no longer had jurisdiction after the issuance of the award; and
3. Whether the defendant’s argument that it would have no other recourse to resolve the outstanding issues had any bearing on the Court’s decision regarding the arbitrator’s jurisdiction to issue a further award.

The plaintiff was successfully represented by Rajah & Tann Singapore’s Ng Kim Beng (Deputy Managing Partner; Partner, International Arbitration) and Benny Santoso (Senior Associate, International Arbitration).