DIFC COURT CONSIDERS SINGAPORE JURISPRUDENCE IN DEVELOPING ITS LAW ON UNPLEADED ISSUES IN ARBITRATION
Can an arbitral tribunal decide a case on an issue that was not pleaded? In Oheo Bank v Parker [2025] DIFC CA 006 (“Oheo Bank”), the DIFC Court of Appeal considered this question in the context of a DIFC-seated DIAC arbitration.
The decision is significant because it is the first appellate-level consideration in the DIFC Courts of Articles 41(2)(a)(ii) and 41(2)(a)(iii) of the DIFC Law No. 1 of 2008 (the “DIFC Arbitration Law”), which, in gist, concern a party’s inability to present its case and an award dealing with matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration, respectively: see [2]-[3] of the judgment.
The decision is also notable for its extensive consideration of Singapore arbitration jurisprudence: see [95] – [104] of the judgment. The DIFC Court observed important parts of the Singapore approach, particularly the need to look at the arbitration in the round: see [103] of the judgment.
However, it declined to follow Singapore authority to the extent that it requires an unpleaded issue to be introduced by formal amendment before it is considered to be in play in the arbitration: see [108(c)] of the judgment.
The DIFC Court instead preferred the more flexible, practical approach adopted in Hong Kong in C1 v IBS, while retaining Singapore's "five sources" as the framework for identifying the issues in play: see [108(c)] of the judgment.
It is worth noting that the "look at matters in the round" formulation that the DIFC Court embraced in fact originates in Singapore's CJA v CIZ and had already been adopted by the Hong Kong court in C1 v IBS: see [103] and [105] of the judgment. On the one point that genuinely divided the authorities, which is whether an unpleaded matter can be brought into play only by amendment, the Court sided against Singapore and in favour of Hong Kong.
Background. The dispute arose out of a DIAC arbitration seated in the DIFC: see [5] of the judgment. The claimant, Parker, was a customer of Oheo Bank, the respondent. The claimant alleged that, through the respondent’s relationship manager, it had been advised to enter into a series of transactions involving the sale of assets, the transfer of EUR 1.4 million to a third party, and the receipt of two corporate bonds.
The bonds were intended to be used as collateral to obtain finance for the purchase of a vessel: see [17]-[20] of the judgment.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant’s claims in deceit, misrepresentation, breach of the Quincecare duty and negligence: see [28]-[36] of the judgment.
However, by a majority, the tribunal upheld one regulatory claim. The majority held that the respondent had failed to explain why the claimant was required to sign an indemnity in connection with the bonds. On that basis, the majority found that the respondent had failed to communicate with the claimant in a manner that was clear, fair and not misleading, and awarded the claimant EUR 1 million: see [37]-[39] of the judgment.
The difficulty was that the successful claim had not been pleaded in that form. The respondent argued that the claim only emerged in the claimant's post-hearing brief: see [10] and [51]-[55] of the judgment.
It therefore applied to set aside the relevant parts of the award on two statutory bases: first, that the award dealt with a matter beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration (Article 41(2)(a)(iii)); and secondly, that it had been denied a reasonable opportunity to present its case (Article 41(2)(a)(ii)). On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the respondent advanced these as Grounds I and II, and also contended that the first-instance judge had failed to give adequate reasons (Ground III): see [13] of the judgment.
The Court’s treatment of Singapore law. The DIFC Court reviewed authorities from several common law jurisdictions, including Singapore: see [68] of the judgment. It observed that international arbitration authorities broadly speak with one voice on light-touch court supervision and judicial restraint: see [69] of the judgment.
However, the Court also noted a divergence on one issue: the importance of pleadings when determining the scope of the submission to arbitration: see [69] and [98] of the judgment.
On natural justice, the DIFC Court accepted the approach in CJA v CIZ [2022] SGCA 41, where Singapore Court of Appeal had recognised that a tribunal is not bound to adopt either party’s precise formulation of its case.
A tribunal may reach conclusions different from the parties' submissions, provided those conclusions are based on the evidence before it. However, where the conclusion may involve a "dramatic departure" from the positions presented by the parties, the tribunal must consult them. A failure to do so may constitute a breach of natural justice: see [95] of the judgment.
On the scope of the submission to arbitration, the DIFC Court considered CAJ v CAI [2021] SGCA 102, CDM v CDP [2021] 2 SLR 235 and CJA v CIZ: see [98]-[104] of the judgment.
In CAJ, the Singapore Court of Appeal treated an unpleaded extension of time defence raised in closing submissions as outside the scope of the arbitration. The DIFC Court noted that CAJ reflected a stricter pleading-based approach: see [98]-[101] of the judgment. It also considered CDM, where the Singapore Court of Appeal identified five sources for determining the scope of a submission to arbitration: pleadings, lists of issues, opening statements, evidence and closing submissions: see [102] of the judgment.
Significantly, the DIFC Court accepted the usefulness of the “five sources”. However, the Court drew the line at any rule requiring formal amendment of pleadings before an unpleaded issue can become live: see [108(c)] of the judgment.
This is the central jurisprudential importance of Oheo Bank. The DIFC Court did not reject Singapore law wholesale. Instead, it used Singapore law as a major reference point (see [95] and [98]-[104] of the judgment), and adopted components of Singapore law (i.e., the five sources) in fashioning its own rules.
The Court’s conclusion. Ultimately, the respondent failed on the scope of submission ground. The Court held that the indemnity issue was sufficiently “in play” that it could not safely be said that the successful claim fell outside the scope of the arbitration. The award was therefore not set aside under Article 41(2)(a)(iii): see [124]-[126] and [168(a)] of the judgment.
However, the respondent succeeded on the fair hearing ground. The problem was not that the tribunal lacked power to consider the issue. The problem was that the respondent had not been given a fair opportunity to answer the claim in the form ultimately accepted by the majority: see [116] of the judgment. The Court held that the respondent’s proposed responses, including contributory negligence and voluntary assumption of risk, were reasonably arguable and could realistically have made a difference: see [117] of the judgment.
Accordingly, the DIFC Court set aside the relevant parts of the award under Article 41(2)(a)(ii) (see [168(b)]-[168(c)] of the judgment). The Court also allowed the appeal on the further ground that the first-instance judge had failed to give adequate reasons (Ground III), with the result that the Judgment itself was set aside.
Key observations. Oheo Bank signals the influence of Singapore arbitration jurisprudence beyond Singapore.
Singapore arbitration law is increasingly operating as a reference point for courts in other common law arbitration seats. The DIFC Court did not treat the Singapore cases merely as comparative background. It engaged directly with the Singapore jurisprudence in formulating its own laws.
In this regard, it can be safely said that Singapore jurisprudence contributed to the development of DIFC arbitration law.
This publication is not intended to be, nor should it be taken as, legal advice; it is not a substitute for specific legal advice for specific circumstances. You should not take, nor refrain from taking, actions based on this publication. Chancery Law Corporation is not responsible for, and does not accept any responsibility for, any loss or damage that may arise from any reliance based on this publication.