When Is Copying Not Copying? The High Court on Concurrent Arbitrations and Independent Judgment

1.    The Singapore High Court has dismissed a challenge to an arbitral award based on allegations of apparent bias arising from extensive similarities between awards issued in related concurrent arbitrations..

2.    In DSS v DST [2026] SGHC 145, the Court considered whether substantial overlap between two arbitration awards demonstrated that a tribunal had failed to exercise independent judgment. The decision offers important guidance on the conduct of concurrent proceedings and clarifies the distinction between impermissible copying and legitimate agreement between tribunals considering common issues.

3.    Our Siraj Omar, SC, Larisa Cheng and Fitzgerald Hendroff had the privilege of acting for the Respondent in successfully defending the challenge.

The Background

4.    The dispute arose out of a chain of maritime charterparty arrangements involving the same vessel.

5.    Separate arbitrations were commenced under the head charter and sub-charter. The proceedings were heard concurrently pursuant to a concurrency order that permitted extensive sharing of evidence and inter-tribunal communications. Although separate tribunals were constituted, both tribunals heard the same evidence and considered many of the same issues.

6.    Following the issuance of awards substantially in favour of the vessel owner and head charterer respectively, the claimant in the sub-charter arbitration applied to set aside the award.

7.    Its primary complaint was that significant portions of the award had been copied from the award issued in the related arbitration.

The Claimant’s Argument

8.    The claimant relied heavily on the Court of Appeal’s decision in DJP v DJO.

9.    It argued that the extensive similarities between the awards gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that the tribunal had approached the dispute with a closed mind. According to the claimant, the tribunal had improperly adopted the findings and reasoning of the related award rather than independently assessing the issues before it.

10.  The claimant also argued that the tribunal had breached the fair hearing rule by relying on the related award without affording the parties a proper opportunity to address its contents.

The Court’s Decision

11.    The High Court rejected the challenge.

12.    The Court accepted that there were substantial similarities between the two awards. However, it emphasised that not all similarity is objectionable.

13.    Particular weight was given to the fact that the arbitrations had been heard concurrently, involved the same factual matrix, relied upon much of the same evidence and concerned overlapping legal issues. In such circumstances, it was unsurprising that the tribunals would reach similar conclusions and, in some instances, express those conclusions in similar language.

14.    The critical question was whether the tribunal had exercised its own independent judgment.

15.    After reviewing the awards in detail, the Court concluded that it had.

16.    The tribunal demonstrated that it was aware of the differences between the proceedings, addressed issues specific to the arbitration before it and independently evaluated the parties’ arguments. While portions of the awards were similar, the differences between them showed that the tribunal had not simply adopted the reasoning of the related award without reflection.

Distinguishing DJP v DPO

16.    A significant aspect of the judgment is its treatment of DJP.

17.    The Court observed that DJP involved a materially different factual context. There, the concern arose because the same presiding arbitrator was involved in separate arbitrations and there was evidence suggesting impermissible reliance on awards issued in earlier proceedings.

18.    By contrast, DSS v DST involved concurrent proceedings conducted pursuant to an agreed framework that contemplated information sharing and inter-tribunal discussions. The Court regarded this distinction as highly significant.

19.    The Court provided a number of observations concerning concurrent arbitrations:

• Concurrent proceedings do not amount to a consolidation of arbitrations.
• Separate tribunals remain under an obligation to exercise independent judgment.
• Similar reasoning does not necessarily indicate bias.
• The focus remains on whether the tribunal independently considered and determined the issues before it.
• Tribunals should take care to address any issues specific to the arbitration before them and ensure that their awards reflect independent reasoning.

Conclusion

20.    DSS v DST provides valuable guidance on the intersection between natural justice and concurrent arbitral proceedings.

21.    The decision confirms that the mere existence of similarities between related awards will not, without more, establish apparent bias. The focus remains on substance rather than form: whether the tribunal genuinely exercised its own judgment in deciding the dispute before it.