Singapore SICC Rejects Attempt To Set Aside Costs Award Denying Third-Party Funding Costs

• Published date: 22 June 2026
• Subject Matter: Corporate/Commercial Law, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Contracts and Commercial Law, Arbitration & Dispute Resolution, Court Procedure
• Law Firm: Aceris Law
• Author: Aceris Law

In DTH v DTF [2026] SGHC(I) 5, the Singapore International Commercial Court (“SICC”) dismissed an application by successful arbitral claimants to set aside or remit the costs portion of a Singapore-seated arbitral award. The applicants had won the merits phase of the arbitration but failed before the arbitral majority to recover their third-party funding costs (“TPF costs”). They argued that the tribunal's refusal to award those costs conflicted with Singapore public policy and breached the parties' agreed arbitral procedure. The SICC rejected both grounds.¹

The decision is important because the court did not decide whether TPF costs are, as a matter of Singapore arbitration law, recoverable in principle. Instead, it held that even if the arbitral majority had erred on that question, the error would not meet the demanding threshold for setting aside an award under Article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (“Model Law”).²

Facts

The dispute arose out of a joint venture for the provision of financing technology services. The applicants, DTH and DTI, and the first and second respondents, DTF and DTG, were shareholders in the third respondent, a joint venture company. Their relationship deteriorated. The first and second respondents purported to terminate shareholder and investment agreements, and the applicants were removed as directors and terminated as employees.³

In the arbitration, the applicants claimed breaches of the relevant agreements and minority oppression under s. 216(1) of the Companies Act 1967. The tribunal's partial award found breaches of the agreements, held that the purported termination was invalid, found oppressive conduct, and ordered the first respondent to buy out the applicants' shares for USD 14,736,000.⁴

The applicants had entered into a Litigation Funding Agreement (“LFA”) with a funder. Under the LFA, the funder was entitled to reimbursement of funded costs and a return calculated by reference to either a multiple of funded costs or a percentage of the resolution sum. The applicants sought USD 14,608,695.11 in TPF costs, in addition to legal costs and disbursements of USD 4,561,716.59 and a conditional-fee uplift of USD 1,403,701.38.⁵

The tribunal awarded the applicants USD 4,129,633.56 in legal costs, including the costs of the arbitration, plus interest. But by majority, it dismissed the claim for TPF costs and the uplift claim. The TPF costs point was the focus of the SICC application.⁶

The arbitration was conducted under the SIAC Rules. The applicants relied on Rule 37, which empowered the tribunal to order that “legal or other costs” be paid by another party. The majority rejected the argument that Rule 37, which provides that the tribunal “shall have the authority to order in its award that all or part of the legal or other costs of a party be paid by another party”, authorised recovery of TPF costs. It reasoned that s. 12(5) of the International Arbitration Act 1994 (“IAA”) limited the tribunal to remedies or relief that could have been ordered by the General Division of the High Court, and that TPF costs did not fall within “other costs” under Rule 37. The majority also found that the LFA did not fall within the third-party funding permitted by Singapore's 2017...