The principle of natural justice occupies a central place in international arbitration, safeguarding procedural fairness and ensuring parties have a reasonable opportunity to present their cases. At the same time, courts have consistently maintained that challenges to arbitral awards on natural justice grounds will only succeed in exceptional circumstances. This position was recently reaffirmed by the Singapore High Court in DTM v DTN [2026] SGHC 68.
The dispute arose from a contract for the sale of iron ore fines. The buyer alleged that the iron content of the cargo delivered was lower than represented. Following a resampling exercise by a third-party umpire, the buyer’s position was confirmed, triggering a contractual price settlement mechanism that entitled it to a refund. When the seller refused to adjust the price, the buyer commenced SIAC arbitration and obtained an award in its favour.
The seller subsequently challenged the award on three natural justice grounds, all of which were rejected.
First, the seller argued that the tribunal had failed to consider one of its pleaded defences. The court disagreed, observing that an arbitral tribunal is not required to expressly address every argument advanced by the parties. Where a tribunal reaches a logically prior determination that effectively disposes of another issue, it may be taken to have resolved that issue implicitly. The court found that this was precisely what had occurred in the present case.
Second, the seller contended that it had been denied a fair opportunity to present its case because the tribunal rejected its request for documents relating to the chain of custody of the iron ore samples. The court noted that this issue had never been properly pleaded by the seller and emphasized that tribunals possess broad procedural discretion in managing document production requests. The fact that the tribunal’s procedural order did not contain detailed reasons was insufficient to support an inference that it had failed to appreciate or consider the relevant issues.
Third, the seller argued that the tribunal’s refusal to order production of transaction data prevented it from establishing the prevailing market price. The court rejected this argument, observing that the seller had ample opportunity to challenge the buyer’s evidence through cross-examination or expert evidence but elected not to do so.
The court also declined to remit the award, emphasising that remission presupposes a finding of a breach of natural justice warranting setting aside, which had not been established.
The decision offers three practical reminders. First, claims, defences, and factual issues must be properly pleaded. Second, parties should carefully consider the consequences of foregoing cross-examination or expert evidence. Third, courts are generally reluctant to interfere with a tribunal’s procedural decisions, particularly regarding document production, absent evidence of irrational or arbitrary conduct.
