Judgment Header
AQU v AQV [2015] SGHC 26
Court DecisionSGHC
[2015] SGHC 26
[2015] SGHC 26
General Division of the High Court of Singapore30 Jan 2015Originating Summons No 133 of 2014
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Subsequent treatment
Cited in 8 later decisions. No negative treatment detected.
How this case connects
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Cited by
8Later cases and laws citing this decision
“BLC and others [2013] 4 SLR 1169, Belinda Ang Saw Ean J cited and applied the principles set out in both Front Row and TMM (at [74]–[88]). Judith Prakash J (as she then was) did likewise in AQU v AQV [2015] SGHC 26 (at [31]–[35]).”
“to the arbitrator that a particular finding on a specific argument satisfactorily disposes of an issue, he need not go on to consider and reject further arguments in relation to that issue: AQU v AQV [2015] SGHC 26 at [23]. The central inquiry is simply whether the award shows that the arbitrator has applied his mind t”
“BLC and others [2013] 4 SLR 1169, Belinda Ang Saw Ean J cited and applied the principles set out in both Front Row and TMM (at [74]–[88]). Judith Prakash J (as she then was) did likewise in AQU v AQV [2015] SGHC 26 (at [31]–[35]).”
“As held in AQU v AQV [2015] SGHC 26 at [18], the “principles of natural justice are not breached just because an arbitrator comes to a conclusion that is not argued by either party as long as that conclusion reasonably flows from the p”
“y goes too far. There must be some indication, on the face of the documents and the tribunal’s award, that the tribunal had considered the critical issues and arguments: see TMM at [90] and AQU v AQV [2015] SGHC 26 at [33]. It will often be a matter of inference rather than explicit indication that the tribunal failed”
Show 3 moreShow fewer
“on Stocznia, I agree with the Respondent that this is a legal contest to the merits of the Award and such purported errors of law cannot be relied upon to prove a breach of natural justice (AQU v AQV [2015] SGHC 26 (“AQU”) at [24]).”
“of natural justice will have been occasioned if the Tribunal comes to a conclusion that reasonably flows from the parties’ arguments, even if that conclusion was not argued by either party (AQU v AQV [2015] SGHC 26 at [18]).”
“o attempt to understand the submissions, the inquiry is whether the award in question reflects the fact that the arbitral tribunal had applied its mind to the critical issues and arguments (AQU v AQV [2015] SGHC 26 at [30] – [35]). If the arbitral tribunal had done that but got it wrong on the factual findings and/or l”
Authorities cited
0Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
No outgoing citations detected.
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Case Metadata
Case No: Originating Summons No 133 of 2014
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2015-01-30
Something wrong on this page?
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.