Plagiarism in Arbitration: The SICC’S Judgment in DJO v. DJP
Keywords:
Arbitration, Natural Justice, Plagiarism, Impartiality, Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC), ICC Arbitration Rules, Setting Aside AwardAbstract
The power of arbitration lies in its finality, party autonomy, and procedural efficiency. Yet, the DJO v. DJP decision from the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) reveals a critical faultline, what happens when arbitrators fail to independently adjudicate disputes, instead copying prior reasoning from unrelated cases? In this landmark judgment, the SICC nullified an ICC arbitral award rendered in Singapore, not for misapplying the law or exceeding jurisdiction, but because the tribunal’s decision lifted significant portions verbatim from another arbitration award. What made the situation even more delicate was the identity of the presiding arbitrator, who had sat on all three parallel arbitrations involving the same respondent but different claimants and contracts. The case sheds light on evolving standards for natural justice, impartiality, and independence in international arbitration, particularly in the context of repeat arbitrator appointments and reliance on overlapping factual matrices. Through this comment, we explore the court’s nuanced reasoning and the potential ripple effects on arbitral practice across jurisdictions.
References
Menon S, ‘Dispelling Due Process Paranoia: Fairness, Efficiency And The Rule Of Law’ (2021) 17(Issue 1) Asian International Arbitration Journal 1 <http://dx.doi.org/10.54648/aiaj2021001> accessed 18 September 2024.
The International Arbitration Act 1994.
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, Art. 34(2)(a)(iv).
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, Art. 34(2)(b)(ii).
The International Arbitration Act 1994, Section 24(b).
ICC Rules of Arbitration, 1 January 2021.
ICC Rules of Arbitration, Art. 11.
ICC Rules of Arbitration, Art. 22.
ICC Rules of Arbitration, Art. 22(1).
ICC Rules of Arbitration, Art. 22(4).
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S. 31(7).
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S. 31(A).
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, Art. 34(2)(a)(iv).
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, Art. 34(2).
CNQ v CNR SGHC 267.
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, Art. 34(2)(B)(ii).
