Section 24(b) of the International Arbitration Act gives the Singapore High Court the power to set aside an arbitration award if a party can prove that a breach of the rules of natural justice occurred in connection with the making of the award by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced.

Philippine International Air Terminals Company (PIATCO) was in possession of a 25-year concession to construct and operate the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal 3 (NAIA 3) in the Philippines. However, in 2003 the Supreme Court of the Philippines nullified the concession on the basis that it violated Philippine banking laws and was against public policy.

PIATCO brought claims against the Philippines in an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration seated in Singapore. PIATCO claimed US$565 million in damages and specific performance of the concession.

The tribunal found that PIATCO had violated Philippine Anti-Dummy Laws which required the management, operation, administration and control of public utilities, such as NAIA 3, to remain in the hands of Philippine companies. In this case, PIATCO had illegally permitted a major German shareholder, Fraport AG, to become involved in the management and control of NAIA 3.

In light of the illegality in the performance of the concession, the tribunal held that PIATCO was not permitted to take advantage of the arbitration agreement in the underlying contract and dismissed PIATCO's claims.

PIATCO then sought to have the award set aside by the Singapore High Court on the grounds that a breach of the rules of natural justice had occurred as PIATCO had not been heard on certain issues on which the tribunal allegedly based its decision. PIATCO further alleged that the tribunal had misapplied the Philippine Anti-Dummy Laws.

In its decision, the Singapore High Court upheld the award of the ICC tribunal. The High Court stated that it was disingenuous for PIATCO to insist that it was not given the right to be heard in circumstances where the arbitral transcripts demonstrated that PIATCO had fully argued its case before the tribunal. Furthermore, the High Court was unconvinced that the ICC tribunal had misapplied the Anti-Dummy Laws.

This decision illustrates the high hurdle for parties attempting to convince the Singapore High Court that there has been a breach of due process by a tribunal.

Currently unavailable (unpublished).