The judge further held that, in any event, the Arbitrator’s failure to issue a declaration of the closure of proceedings was merely a technical, arid breach which was not a material breach of procedure compelling the court to exercise its discretion to set aside the award.

Whether the Lapse of Time in the issuance of the Award satisfied any of the three grounds for setting aside

16(1) A party may request the Court to remove an arbitrator –

(a) …

(b) Who has refused or failed –

(i) To properly conduct the proceedings; or

(ii) To use all reasonable dispatch in conducting the proceedings or making an award.

Further, if the delay were truly intolerable, Coal & Oil ought to have applied under Article 14 of the Model Law for the mandate of the arbitrator to be terminated before the Award was released. Article 14 of the Model Law is similar to s.16 of Singapore’s International Arbitration Act and provides in pertinent part as follows.

(1) If an arbitrator becomes de jure or de facto unable to perform his functions or for other reasons fails to act without undue delay, his mandate terminates if he withdraws from his office or if the parties agree on the termination…

However, Coal & Oil did not do so, leading Chong J to infer that it was “only making the argument now because the Award that was issued was adverse to Coal & Oil and not because of any delay”.

Application of the Judge’s findings above to the three grounds of appeal

Further, Chong J opined that Coal & Oil had conflated the concept of public interest with that of public policy: “[t]he public interest is the wider concept. It embraces everything that is conducive to the public good ranging from the comparatively minor (clean streets) to the vital (a robust criminal justice system). An innumerable number of things could be described as not being in the public interest. However, the concept of “public policy” in the context of the setting aside of an arbitral award, as noted at [61] above, is much narrower. Violations of “public policy” only encompass those acts which are so egregious that elementary notions of morality have been transgressed. While delay in the release of an arbitral award might not necessarily be in the public interest, it cannot, in itself without more, constitute a violation of public policy”.

'''Comment'''