DTH v DTF: An Example Of The Potential Issues With Third-party Funded Arbitrations

DTH & Another v DTF & Others [2026] SGHC(I) 5

The metaphorical “third rail” in third-party funded disputes has long been that of overall recoverability when judgments return less than expected and necessary deductions for funding costs have been taken into account. The recent case of DTH v DTF¹ before the Singapore International Commercial Court (“SICC”) is a striking example of this tension.

In this case, DTH and DTI (collectively, the “Applicants”) were the successful parties in a Singapore-seated arbitration (the “Arbitration”) conducted under the SIAC 2016 Rules brought against DTF, DTG and DTJ (collectively, the “Respondents”). However, the Applicants’ claim for a share buyout figure of US$65 million was significantly reduced with the majority decision of the Tribunal only awarding approximately US$14.7 million. As part of this decision, the Applicants’ claimed third-party funding costs (“TPF costs”) of US$14,608,695.11 were deemed irrecoverable, leaving the Applicants with “alm