SICC Finds Over 200 ‘Copy-Paste’ Paragraphs in Award, Citing Breach of Natural Justice and Apparent Bias
The Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) recently annulled an arbitral award against an Indian government freight railway company due to the discovery that significant portions of the award were “copy-pasted” [DJO v DJP and others]. International Judge Simon Thorley described the case as both “unusual and troubling,” stating that the arbitral tribunal’s drafting breached natural justice principles and suggested potential bias.
The issue arose as one of the arbitrators, referred to as “Judge C,” had also presided over two similar cases before delivering the November 2023 award. Over 200 paragraphs of the award were found to be nearly verbatim from these earlier rulings, leading Judge Thorley to conclude that the tribunal had not independently assessed the unique facts of the current case. This led him to set aside the award.
Although Judge Thorley acknowledged the problematic “copy-paste” issue, he stopped short of calling it plagiarism. The lapse seemed less about dishonesty and more about cutting corners to expedite the tribunal’s work. Consequently, he rejected the argument that the award violated Singapore’s public policy, which condemns plagiarism.
The case involved a legal team from PSL Advocates & Solicitors, led by Sameer Jain and Anu Sura, who represented the claimant, DJO. Meanwhile, the defendants, Consortium X, were represented by Ashish Chugh, Nicholas Tan, and Darien The from Wong & Leow LLC.
Background
The dispute originated in 2020 between an Indian government entity, DJO, and a consortium of three companies (Consortium X) that had agreed to lay railway tracks for freight trains. A 2017 Indian government notification to raise minimum wages for workers led Consortium X to request additional payments from DJO in 2020. Following a disagreement, an arbitral tribunal, composed of three retired Indian judges, was formed in April 2022 to handle the dispute.
Judge C, who had presided over two prior similar cases (CP-301 and CP-302), was also the presiding member in this case. In both earlier cases, the tribunal had ruled in favor of two other consortia (Y and Z), and in November 2023, the tribunal ruled in favor of Consortium X, against DJO.
DJO challenged this award before the SICC, pointing out that more than 200 paragraphs in the November 2023 arbitral award were directly copied from the previous two cases. Consortium X did not dispute the degree of reproduction but acknowledged at least 212 copied paragraphs.
SICC Ruling
In the August 15 ruling, Judge Thorley accepted DJO’s argument that the “copy-pasting” violated natural justice principles. Instead of handling the case independently, the tribunal used the earlier awards as templates, modifying them to fit the current case without considering its unique elements.
The ruling cited examples, noting that arguments from one ruling were repeated in the current case with only the names of the counsel changed. Additionally, authorities not cited during the current arbitration but mentioned in the previous cases were also referenced in the 2023 award. Nine such cases were identified. Further errors included the incorrect application of arbitration law and nonsensical observations in the context of the case.
The tribunal also overlooked some unique issues specific to this case. As a result, the SICC ruled that DJO’s right to a fair and impartial award had been compromised, leading to the setting aside of the arbitral decision.
(With inputs from agency)
Share your news, articles, deals, columns, or press releases with us! Click the link to submit and join our platform today.
