There is an abundance of scholarly writing on the UNCITRAL Model Law and arbitral tribunals rendering decisions on issues beyond the parties' submissions (ultra petita).The same cannot be said where the arbitral tribunal fails to decide on the issues submitted by the parties (infra petita). In BLB and another v. BLC and others  S.G.H.C. 196, a Singapore High Court decision, the court set aside an award infra petita under Article 34(2)(a)(iii) of the UNCITRAL Model Law and Section 24(b) of the Singapore International Arbitration Act (Cap. 143A). The ruling raises interesting issues that warrant a closer inspection of the UNCITRAL Model Law and awards infra petita.
This article addresses two questions. First, which of the Article 34(2) grounds under the UNCITRAL Model Law do awards infra petita fall under? Second, is making a request for an additional award under Article 33(3) a prerequisite to apply to set aside an award under Article 34(2)? These questions are addressed and analyzed pursuant to the Singapore High Court ruling in BLB and another v. BLC and others  S.G.H.C. 196 and to the drafting history of the UNCITRAL Model Law.Journal of International Arbitration