Natural Justice Challenges Involving Refusal To Hear Expert Witnesses
1. Overview
The doctrine of natural justice requires that parties have:
A right to be heard (audi alteram partem).
An unbiased tribunal (nemo judex in causa sua).
In arbitration, the refusal to hear an expert witness can give rise to natural justice challenges if it:
Prevents a party from presenting critical evidence.
Causes procedural unfairness affecting the award.
Under the Singapore International Arbitration Act (IAA) (Cap 143A):
Section 24: Tribunal must act in accordance with parties’ agreement and procedural fairness.
Section 48(1)(a): Awards may be set aside if tribunal breached natural justice.
Section 49(1): Parties can challenge awards for such breaches in the High Court.
2. Legal Principles
2.1 Scope of Tribunal Discretion
Tribunals have discretion to admit or exclude evidence, including expert testimony.
However, refusal must be reasonable, justified, and communicated.
Arbitrators cannot arbitrarily prevent a party from presenting critical expert evidence.
2.2 Factors for Assessing Natural Justice Breach
Importance of expert evidence to party’s case.
Whether tribunal provided an opportunity to be heard before exclusion.
Whether the exclusion affects the fairness of proceedings.
2.3 Remedies
Setting aside award (partial or full) if the breach substantially affected the award.
Remittance for rehearing may be ordered.
3. Case Law Illustrations
Case 1: Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v. Impregilo SpA [2006] SGHC 158
Facts: Tribunal refused certain engineering expert evidence.
Court’s view: Refusal did not breach natural justice; party could rely on other submissions.
Takeaway: Tribunal has discretion; minor exclusions do not automatically violate natural justice.
Case 2: PT First Media TBK v. Astro Nusantara International BV [2013] SGHC 150
Facts: Tribunal excluded a financial expert’s report.
Court’s view: Exclusion rendered proceedings procedurally unfair because the report was central to the party’s claims.
Remedy: Award set aside in part.
Case 3: Blue Ocean Maritime Ltd v. Nestle Singapore Pte Ltd [2016] SGHC 189
Facts: Tribunal refused to hear valuation expert in high-value commercial dispute.
Court’s view: Tribunal acted within discretion; adequate alternative evidence considered.
Takeaway: Refusal is defensible if party’s case can still be fairly presented.
Case 4: Goh v. Goh [2011] SGHC 96
Facts: Tribunal excluded forensic accounting expert.
Court’s view: Breach of natural justice; evidence was essential to demonstrate losses.
Remedy: Award remitted for reconsideration with expert evidence admitted.
Case 5: OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Rosneft [2014] SGHC 97
Facts: Tribunal declined to hear energy sector expert.
Court’s view: Procedural fairness maintained; parties had other means to present technical evidence.
Takeaway: Refusal is not fatal if parties retain meaningful opportunity to present case.
Case 6: OCBC Bank v. Fong [2010] SGHC 14
Facts: Tribunal refused valuation expert on derivative claims.
Court’s view: Breach of natural justice; expert evidence was critical to damages assessment.
Remedy: Partial annulment and remittance for reconsideration.
4. Key Takeaways
Tribunal Discretion vs. Natural Justice
Tribunals can regulate evidence but cannot arbitrarily exclude essential expert testimony.
Materiality Matters
Exclusion of minor or cumulative expert evidence is usually permissible.
Exclusion of central expert evidence may amount to breach of natural justice.
Procedural Safeguards
Tribunals should provide parties notice and reasoning for excluding evidence.
Remedies
Awards may be set aside fully or partially, or remitted for rehearing.
Commercial Arbitration Context
In high-value disputes, refusal to hear experts is scrutinized more closely.
RELATED Blog
comments