We previously reported the first instance decision in this case – see here.
In Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels Inc and another v Global Gaming Philippines LLC and another  SGCA 9, the Singapore Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision to dismiss an application to set aside an arbitral award and to resist its enforcement on the basis that the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud and was thus contrary to the public policy of Singapore.
The following important points arise from the Court’s decision:
- The three-month time limit for setting aside an arbitral award, as stated in Art 34(3) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, as set out in the First Schedule of the International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed) (“IAA”) cannot be extended even in cases of fraud.
- The three-month time limit applies to an application to set aside an arbitral award under s 24 of the IAA, as s 24 of the IAA does not create a separate regime for the setting aside of an arbitral award.
- “Fraud” within the meaning of s 24(a) of the IAA must include procedural fraud, that is, when a party commits perjury, conceals material information and/or suppresses evidence that would have a substantial effect on the making of the award. There must be a causative link between any concealment aimed at deceiving the arbitral tribunal and the decision in favour of the concealing party.
See the case summary of the case.