Case Details
- Citation: [2025] SGCA 12
- Title: Vietnam Oil and Gas Group v Joint Stock Company (Power Machines – ZTL, LMZ, Electrosila Energomachexport)
- Court: Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore
- Date of Decision: 17 March 2025
- Judges: Steven Chong JCA
- Case Number: Civil Appeal No 48 of 2024 (Summons No 2 of 2025)
- Procedural Posture: Application for leave to adduce further evidence on appeal (notes taken by solicitors of hearings below) in the context of a recourse challenge to an arbitral award
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Vietnam Oil and Gas Group
- Defendant/Respondent: Joint Stock Company (Power Machines – ZTL, LMZ, Electrosila Energomachexport)
- Legal Areas: Arbitration — Award; Civil Procedure — Appeals
- Statutes Referenced: First Schedule of the International Arbitration Act 1994; International Arbitration Act 1994 (First Schedule); Supreme Court of Judicature Act; Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969
- Key Arbitration Provision: Article 34(4) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (as given force of law in Singapore)
- Related High Court Decision: [2024] SGHC 244
- Other Cited Authorities: [2021] SGHC 110; [2023] SGCA 29; [2024] SGHC 244; [2025] SGCA 12
- Judgment Length: 24 pages, 7,533 words
Summary
In Vietnam Oil and Gas Group v Joint Stock Company (Power Machines – ZTL, LMZ, Electrosila Energomachexport) ([2025] SGCA 12), the Court of Appeal considered a procedural application arising from an appeal against a High Court decision in arbitration setting-aside proceedings. The applicant, Vietnam Oil and Gas Group, sought leave to adduce “further evidence” on appeal in the form of contemporaneous notes taken by its solicitors during two hearings before the High Court judge. The applicant’s purpose was to challenge the accuracy of the judge’s notes of evidence, specifically a recorded submission by the respondent’s counsel concerning remission under Article 34(4) of the UNCITRAL Model Law.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the application. It held that the solicitor notes were not material to the appeal and, in any event, the applicant was not entitled to raise the alleged error in the judge’s notes in the manner attempted. Central to the court’s reasoning was the principle that the judge’s notes of hearing form the official record of the proceedings, and that challenges to or corrections of that official record must be raised through the proper procedural route—namely, by addressing the alleged error with the judge below at the earliest opportunity. The applicant’s failure to do so, coupled with the absence of a demonstrated relevance to the appeal, meant the court would not permit the notes to be introduced on appeal.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The dispute began with an arbitration in which an arbitral award was issued. Vietnam Oil and Gas Group (“Vietnam Oil”) applied to the General Division of the High Court to set aside the award. This application was brought as HC/OA 346/2024 (“OA 346”). Vietnam Oil also filed HC/SUM 988/2024 (“SUM 988”), an application connected to enforcement: it sought to set aside an earlier order granting the respondent leave to enforce the award. The High Court heard OA 346 and SUM 988 together before a judge of the General Division (the “Judge”).
There were three hearings before the Judge. At the first hearing on 19 July 2024, the Judge heard oral arguments on the substantive setting-aside application and reserved judgment. Shortly thereafter, at the second hearing on 23 July 2024, the Judge delivered a brief oral judgment. Although the Judge agreed that there were grounds to set aside the award, he was not inclined to set it aside immediately. Instead, he ordered that the matter be remitted to the arbitral tribunal. A third hearing took place on 31 July 2024 to resolve a residual disagreement between the parties on the precise terms of the order reflecting the Judge’s decision.
On 24 September 2024, the Judge issued written grounds of decision: Vietnam Oil and Gas Group v Joint Stock Company (Power Machines – ZTL, LMZ, Electrosila Energomachexport) and another matter [2024] SGHC 244 (the “GD”). Both parties then filed cross-appeals. In CA/CA 48/2024 (“CA 48”), Vietnam Oil appealed against the Judge’s decision to order remission rather than setting aside the award. In CA/CA 49/2024 (“CA 49”), the respondent appealed against the Judge’s finding that Vietnam Oil had established grounds for setting aside. The respondent later confirmed that if its appeal in CA 49 failed, it agreed with the Judge’s remission approach.
Against this backdrop, the present application concerned only CA 48. Vietnam Oil’s core contention in CA 48 was that the Judge lacked jurisdiction to order remission because neither party had made a request for remission under Article 34(4) of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Article 34(4) provides that the court, when asked to set aside an award, may suspend the setting-aside proceedings to give the tribunal an opportunity to resume proceedings or take other action “where appropriate and so requested by a party”. Vietnam Oil’s position was that the “so requested by a party” requirement had not been satisfied.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The immediate legal issue in the Court of Appeal was whether Vietnam Oil should be granted leave to adduce further evidence on appeal—specifically, solicitor notes taken during the hearings below. The court had to determine the governing legal framework for such applications and whether the proposed evidence met the threshold for admission on appeal.
A second, more substantive procedural issue was whether Vietnam Oil could use those notes to challenge an alleged error in the Judge’s notes of hearing. The applicant alleged that the Judge’s notes recorded a submission by the respondent’s counsel—“If Court takes view that there was breach, submit that should remit to Tribunal”—that Vietnam Oil claimed was never made. The Court of Appeal had to decide whether this kind of challenge to the official record could be raised for the first time on appeal through an evidential application, or whether it required a specific correction procedure at the trial level.
Finally, the court had to assess whether the solicitor notes were “material” to the appeal. Even if the evidence could be admitted, the court needed to consider whether it would actually affect the resolution of the issues in CA 48, particularly the jurisdictional question under Article 34(4) and the procedural requirement of a request for remission.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The Court of Appeal began by framing the application as “rather peculiar” but practically important: it raised the question of how, and whether, a party may challenge the accuracy of a judge’s notes of hearing by adducing alternative evidence on appeal. The court emphasised that the applicant did not place the alleged error and supporting evidence before the Judge. Instead, Vietnam Oil waited until after the written grounds were released and then sought to introduce solicitor notes on appeal to attack the veracity of the Judge’s notes.
On the evidential admission question, the parties disagreed on the legal framework. The respondent argued that the well-known test in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489 should apply. Under that approach, a party seeking to adduce further evidence on appeal must generally show, among other things, that the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the trial, and that it is relevant and credible enough to be admitted. The respondent stressed that there were no audio recordings of the hearings, so the Judge’s notes were the “official record” under the Rules of Court 2021 (in particular, O 15 r 11(7)). In that context, the respondent argued that Vietnam Oil should have raised the alleged discrepancy with the Judge at the earliest opportunity.
Vietnam Oil countered that it did not need to satisfy Ladd v Marshall because the solicitor notes related to matters that emerged only after the Judge’s decision. The applicant argued that it could not have adduced the notes before the Judge gave his decision because the alleged error was only identifiable after the Judge’s notes were known. It also argued that the notes were contemporaneous and therefore reliable, and that there was no unreasonable delay because it first became aware of the issue when the GD was released on 24 September 2024.
Although the Court of Appeal addressed the framework, its decisive reasoning focused on materiality and proper procedure. The court held that Mr Nguyen’s notes were not material to the appeal. The court similarly held that Ms Poh’s notes were not material. In other words, even if the notes could be considered as additional evidence, they did not sufficiently bear on the issues that the Court of Appeal needed to determine in CA 48. This conclusion reflects a common appellate discipline: further evidence is not admitted merely to create a factual dispute about peripheral matters; it must have a direct bearing on the legal questions before the appellate court.
More importantly, the Court of Appeal held that the applicant was not entitled to raise the alleged error in the Judge’s notes in the appeal in the manner attempted. The court reasoned that the Judge’s notes of hearing form the official record of the hearings. Where a party alleges that the official record contains an error, the correct course is to challenge or seek correction of the official record through the proper procedural mechanism at the trial level. The court treated this as a matter of procedural propriety and fairness: it is not appropriate to bypass the trial judge and attempt to reconstruct the record through appellate evidential applications after the fact.
In analysing the applicant’s conduct, the Court of Appeal noted that Vietnam Oil had not raised the alleged error with the Judge at the time. The applicant’s failure to do so meant that it could not rely on the solicitor notes to attack the official record on appeal. The court’s approach underscores that the appellate process is not designed to substitute for timely correction of the record below, particularly where the rules contemplate a structured method for dealing with the official record of hearings.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeal concluded that the alleged error in the Judge’s notes had no bearing on the appeal, and that the applicant was not even entitled to raise it in the appeal. The dismissal was therefore grounded both in the lack of materiality and in the procedural bar against challenging the official record through the evidential route chosen by Vietnam Oil.
What Was the Outcome?
The Court of Appeal dismissed Vietnam Oil’s application for leave to adduce the solicitor notes of Ms Poh and Mr Nguyen. The practical effect is that the appellate court would not consider those notes as further evidence to challenge the Judge’s recorded submission about remission under Article 34(4).
As a result, CA 48 would proceed without the benefit of the proposed evidential material, and Vietnam Oil’s jurisdictional argument in relation to the “so requested by a party” requirement would not be supported by the attempted reconstruction of what was said at the hearings below.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This decision is significant for practitioners because it clarifies the procedural limits of adducing “further evidence” on appeal, especially where the evidence is aimed at disputing the accuracy of a judge’s notes of hearing. The Court of Appeal’s emphasis on the official nature of judge’s notes and the need to follow the proper procedure for correcting the record provides a clear warning: parties must act promptly if they believe the record is wrong.
From an arbitration-related perspective, the case also indirectly highlights the importance of Article 34(4) compliance in setting-aside proceedings. While the Court of Appeal did not ultimately decide the merits of CA 48 in this application, the dispute itself illustrates how remission can turn on whether a party has made the requisite request. Practitioners should therefore ensure that requests for remission are clearly made, recorded, and—if necessary—formally pursued through appropriate procedural steps at the High Court level.
More broadly, the case reinforces appellate discipline in Singapore civil procedure. Even where a party believes that the trial judge’s record is inaccurate, the appellate court will not readily permit a party to introduce alternative evidence to re-litigate what was said at the hearing. The decision encourages timely engagement with the trial judge and adherence to the rules governing the official record, thereby promoting procedural certainty and reducing the risk of unfairness to the opposing party.
Legislation Referenced
- International Arbitration Act 1994 (First Schedule)
- First Schedule of the International Arbitration Act 1994 (incorporating the UNCITRAL Model Law)
- Supreme Court of Judicature Act (as referenced in the judgment)
- Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 (as referenced in the judgment)
Cases Cited
- Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489
- Vietnam Oil and Gas Group v Joint Stock Company (Power Machines – ZTL, LMZ, Electrosila Energomachexport) and another matter [2024] SGHC 244
- [2021] SGHC 110
- [2023] SGCA 29
- [2025] SGCA 12
Source Documents
This article analyses [2025] SGCA 12 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.