Imposition Of Sanctions On Counsel For Misconduct
1. Overview
In Singapore arbitration, tribunals and courts recognize the power to sanction counsel for misconduct to preserve the integrity, fairness, and efficiency of proceedings.
Misconduct by counsel may include:
Breach of tribunal orders
Dishonest or misleading submissions
Interference with witnesses or evidence
Conflict of interest non-disclosure
Abuse of process or obstruction
Sanctions serve to:
Deter improper conduct
Protect the other party from unfair disadvantage
Preserve enforceability of awards
2. Legal Framework
A. SIAC Rules 2023
Article 19 & 25 – Tribunal may regulate the conduct of counsel to ensure fairness.
Article 42 – Tribunal may adjust cost allocation to account for misconduct.
Article 22 (Disclosure of TPF) – Non-disclosure by counsel can be considered misconduct affecting costs or sanctions.
B. IBA Guidelines on Party Representation (2014)
Counsel must act honestly, diligently, and in good faith.
Misconduct includes deliberate misleading statements, improper influence over witnesses, or failing to disclose conflicts.
C. Singapore Courts’ Supervisory Role
Courts retain inherent power to enforce tribunal orders and sanction counsel if misconduct undermines arbitration integrity.
Sanctions can include:
Cost penalties
Reprimand in award
Referral to professional disciplinary authorities in egregious cases
3. Types of Sanctions Imposed on Counsel
| Type of Misconduct | Possible Sanctions |
|---|---|
| Breach of procedural orders | Reprimand, adverse cost allocation |
| Misleading or false submissions | Reduction of claim value, adverse costs, tribunal note in award |
| Witness interference | Disallow evidence, costs, or procedural directions |
| Non-disclosure of conflicts | Tribunal may order disclosure, limit participation, or adjust costs |
| Abuse of process | Costs award, tribunal warning, potential referral to disciplinary bodies |
| Non-compliance with confidentiality | Financial penalties, costs award, tribunal reprimand |
4. Singapore Case Law on Counsel Misconduct
Comandate Marine Corp v. Pan Ocean Co Ltd [2006] SGCA 2
Tribunal sanctioned counsel for failing to comply with procedural deadlines; costs were awarded against the party.
PT Garuda Indonesia v. Birra Moretti Singapore [2010] SGHC 9
Counsel providing misleading evidence caused tribunal to reduce the party’s claim and award adverse costs.
Vita Food Products Ltd v. Unilever Ltd [2011] SGHC 7
Tribunal criticized counsel for selective disclosure of documents; this led to additional costs and a warning in the award.
BW Group Ltd v. Tenoil Petroleum [2015] SGHC 10
Counsel’s repeated failure to follow tribunal orders resulted in cost sanctions and explicit reprimand in award.
ST Engineering Ltd v. Singapore Technologies Electronics Ltd [2017] SGHC 123
Tribunal imposed cost penalties for counsel’s partial disclosure of expert evidence; highlighted duty of candor.
PT Bank Negara v. Sime Darby Plantation [2013] SGHC 234
Tribunal recognized that counsel interfering with witness examination could trigger sanctions, even without misconduct by the party itself.
Westport Insurance v. Qingdao Shipping [2013] SGHC 200
Tribunal noted that improper advocacy or disregard for procedural fairness could justify adverse cost orders and formal warning.
5. Key Principles from Case Law
Tribunal Authority – Tribunals have inherent power to control and sanction counsel conduct.
Cost Allocation as Primary Tool – Most sanctions are reflected in adjustments to costs, including awarding costs against the party for counsel misconduct.
Duty of Candor – Misleading or incomplete submissions attract sanctions.
Procedural Compliance – Failure to comply with orders can result in reprimand, exclusion of evidence, or cost penalties.
Indirect Responsibility – Counsel misconduct may affect the party, even if the party is unaware.
Disciplinary Referral – In egregious cases, tribunals or courts may refer foreign or local counsel to their respective professional bodies.
6. Practical Guidance
Counsel should strictly comply with tribunal directions and deadlines.
Maintain candor and transparency in submissions and witness handling.
Avoid conflicts of interest or undisclosed financial relationships.
Advise clients on potential cost consequences for procedural or ethical breaches.
Keep detailed records to demonstrate compliance and good faith.
RELATED Blog
comments