LITT
Try LITT free
Government of the Republic of the Philippines v Philippine International Air Terminals Co, Inc [2006] SGHC 206
The court held that the principle of severability is a necessary ingredient in the Tribunal's reasoning when determining the governing law of an arbitration agreement, and that the Tribunal did not breach natural justice by deciding this issue as part of its partial award.
Fairmount Development Pte Ltd v Soh Beng Tee & Co Pte Ltd [2006] SGHC 189
An arbitral award may be set aside for breach of natural justice if the arbitrator decides a case on a basis that was not raised by the parties and on which the parties were not given an opportunity to be heard.
Progen Engineering Pte Ltd v Chua Aik Kia (trading as Uni Sanitary Electrical Construction) [2006] SGHC 159
The court held that an error of law or fact does not constitute misconduct under s 17(2) of the Arbitration Act, and that the court will not interfere with an arbitrator's findings of fact on an application for leave to appeal under s 28.
Bovis Lend Lease Pte Ltd v Jay-Tech Marine & Projects Pte Ltd and Another Application [2005] SGHC 91
The court held that the arbitration agreement provided for an ad hoc arbitration where the Singapore Institute of Architects was the appointing authority, and the arbitrator was to apply SIAC rules as procedural rules, not as an institutional administration.
Permasteelisa Pacific Holdings Ltd v Hyundai Engineering and Construction Co Ltd [2005] SGHC 33
The High Court granted leave to appeal on a question of law regarding sub-contractor objections to architect instructions. It set aside an arbitrator's award for procedural misconduct and remitted claims concerning replaced glass panels for further determination.
PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SA [2005] SGHC 197
An arbitral tribunal's error of law or fact is not a ground for setting aside an award under the International Arbitration Act, and conflicting arbitral decisions between private parties do not inherently raise public policy concerns.
Yee Hong Pte Ltd v Tan Chye Hee Andrew (Ho Bee Development Pte Ltd, Third Party) [2005] SGHC 163
The court has jurisdiction under s 6(5) of the Arbitration Act to stay court proceedings and refer parties to arbitration where a party is claiming through or under a party to an arbitration agreement, even if there is no direct arbitration agreement between the parties to the co
Dalian Hualiang Enterprise Group Co Ltd and Another v Louis Dreyfus Asia Pte Ltd [2005] SGHC 161
The court held that a stay of proceedings under s 6(2) of the International Arbitration Act should not be granted where the dispute is clearly outside the scope of the arbitration agreement, such as a set-off claim arising from a separate contract to which the plaintiffs were not
Yee Hong Pte Ltd v Powen Electrical Engineering Pte Ltd [2005] SGHC 114
The court held that the arbitrator's decision to proceed with the hearing did not constitute improper conduct or a violation of natural justice, and that the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial injustice as required by s 16(1)(b) of the Arbitration Act.
Liew Ter Kwang v Hurry General Contractor Pte Ltd [2004] SGHC 97
The court granted leave to appeal an arbitration award on questions of law concerning the interpretation of standard form building contract clauses, as the resolution of these questions would add to the certainty of the law and a strong prima facie case of error was shown.
Mitsui Engineering & Shipbuilding Co Ltd v Easton Graham Rush and Another [2004] SGHC 26
The High Court has no jurisdiction or power to grant an interlocutory injunction to restrain an arbitrator from continuing arbitral proceedings pending the determination of a challenge to the arbitrator or an application to set aside an interim award, as the UNCITRAL Model Law (a
Australian Timber Products Pte Ltd v Koh Brothers Building & Civil Engineering Contractor (Pte) Ltd [2004] SGHC 243
The High Court dismissed the defendant's application to set aside a default judgment, ruling that the defendant failed to show a defence on the merits. The court prioritized signed final accounts and surveyor certifications over the defendant's unsubstantiated claims of defective work.
Sintal Enterprise Pte Ltd v Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd [2004] SGHC 223
A claim that is indisputable cannot form the subject of a 'dispute' within the meaning of an arbitration clause, and thus cannot be referred to arbitration.
Luzon Hydro Corp v Transfield Philippines Inc [2004] SGHC 204
The court held that there was no evidence that the expert assistant had overstepped his bounds or that the tribunal had abdicated its responsibility, and that the applicant's complaints were based on speculation rather than strong evidence of irregularity.
Sabah Shipyard (Pakistan) Ltd v Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan [2004] SGHC 109
The court held that a dispute over the costs of an arbitration, where the underlying dispute was settled or withdrawn, is a dispute 'arising in connection with' the underlying contract and thus falls within the scope of the arbitration clause.
Anwar Siraj and Another v Ting Kang Chung and Another [2003] SGHC 64
The court held that an arbitrator should only be removed for misconduct if there is an objective real likelihood of bias or incompetence amounting to a substantial miscarriage of justice, and that a subjective lack of confidence by a party is insufficient.
Digital Dispatch (ITL) Pte Ltd v Citycab Pte Ltd [2003] SGHC 6
Leave to appeal against an arbitrator's decision on a 'one-off' contract clause should only be granted if the construction is obviously wrong.
Jurong Engineering Ltd v Black & Veatch Singapore Pte Ltd [2003] SGHC 292
Where parties agree to adopt the rules of an arbitral institution without specifying a particular set of rules, the applicable rules are those current at the time of submission to arbitration.
Lim Kah Ho Maurice v Beenleigh Construction And Project Management Pte Ltd [2003] SGHC 283
The High Court has no jurisdiction to hear an application for a stay of proceedings under section 6(1) of the Arbitration Act where the proceedings were instituted in a Subordinate Court; the application must be made to the court where the proceedings were instituted.
Chong Long Hak Kee Construction Trading Co v IEC Global Pte Ltd [2003] SGHC 234
The defendant's act of serving a 48-hour notice on the plaintiff in respect of its Counterclaim constituted a step in the proceedings, thereby nullifying its right to apply for a stay under s 6(1) of the Arbitration Act.
PT Tugu Pratama Indonesia v Magma Nusantara Ltd [2003] SGHC 204
In PT Tugu Pratama Indonesia v Magma Nusantara Ltd, the Singapore High Court set aside an arbitral interim award on costs, ruling that the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by ignoring the specific cost-sharing mechanism mandated by the parties' underlying arbitration agreement.
Teck Guan Sdn Bhd v Beow Guan Enterprises Pte Ltd [2003] SGHC 203
The court dismissed the application, ruling that general words in a contract are insufficient to incorporate an arbitration clause from a separate document. There must be a clear and specific intention by the parties to include such a clause for it to be legally binding.
United Engineers (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Northern Elevator Manufacturing Sdn Bhd [2003] SGHC 158
The court may remit an arbitration award to the arbitrator for reconsideration if the arbitrator has erred in law in the assessment of damages, particularly where the assessment is inconsistent with the arbitrator's own findings of liability.
Myanma Yaung Chi Oo Co. Ltd v Win Win Nu and Another [2003] SGHC 124
The court held that there is an implied duty of confidentiality in arbitration proceedings, but that disclosure is permissible if it is reasonably necessary to protect a party's legal rights against a third party, and such disclosure does not require prior leave of court.