⚖️ JUSTICE HURRIED RISKS JUSTICE BURIED - Analysis of the Singapore High Court Decision in the Arbitration Dispute - Sai Wan Shipping Ltd v Landmark Line Co, Ltd [2022] SGHC 8
“Justice delayed may be justice denied” (William Ewart Gladstone)[1] is a widely recognized principle in international jurisprudence.[2] It conveys that delayed justice can amount to a denial of justice. Parties involved in dispute resolution, whether through conventional court procedures or international arbitration, may suffer irreparable harm while awaiting the issuance of a final and legally binding decision/award. For instance, a claimant's business operations, which rely on the debt recovery process against the respondent, may collapse if an arbitral tribunal unjustifiably postpones rendering an award.
However, in its decision to annul the arbitral award in the dispute between Sai Wan Shipping and Landmark Line on January 14, 2022 (“the 14 January 2022 Decision”) due to an arbitrator issuing the award hastily and bypassing multiple procedural steps,[3] the Singapore High Court emphasized at the very outset of its decision: “While justice delayed may be justice denied, justice hurried risks justice buried.”
This raises the question: is there a way to define and strike a balance between “hurried justice” and “delayed justice”? Through an analysis of the 14 January 2022 Decision, this post underscores the importance of procedural management and systematic scheduling of timetable to achieve fair outcomes for the parties involved in international arbitration in general and Vietnamese arbitration in particular.
