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
- Procedural Context: Civil Appeal (Summons application for leave to adduce further evidence)
- Case Numbers: Court of Appeal / Civil Appeal No 48 of 2024 (Summons No 2 of 2025)
- Judge(s): Steven Chong JCA
- Applicant: Vietnam Oil and Gas Group
- Respondent: Joint Stock Company (Power Machines – ZTL, LMZ, Electrosila Energomachexport)
- Legal Areas: Arbitration — Award; Civil Procedure — Appeals
- Core Procedural Issue: Whether solicitor notes taken during hearings below may be adduced on appeal to challenge the accuracy of the trial judge’s notes of evidence/record
- Statutes Referenced: First Schedule of the International Arbitration Act; International Arbitration Act 1994 (First Schedule); Supreme Court of Judicature Act; Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969
- Key International Instrument Referenced: UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, Art 34(4)
- Length of Judgment: 24 pages, 7,533 words
- Related High Court Decision(s): Vietnam Oil and Gas Group v Joint Stock Company (Power Machines – ZTL, LMZ, Electrosila Energomachexport) and another matter [2024] SGHC 244
- Related Court of Appeal/High Court Decisions Cited: [2021] SGHC 110; [2023] SGCA 29; [2024] SGHC 244; [2025] SGCA 12
Summary
In Vietnam Oil and Gas Group v Joint Stock Company (Power Machines – ZTL, LMZ, Electrosila Energomachexport) ([2025] SGCA 12), the Court of Appeal dealt with a procedural application arising from an appeal against a High Court decision concerning the setting aside (or remission) of an arbitral award. 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 hearings below. The applicant’s purpose was to challenge the accuracy of the trial judge’s notes/record of what counsel had submitted at the hearing.
The Court of Appeal rejected 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. The Court emphasised that the judge’s notes of hearing form the official record of the proceedings, and that parties must follow the proper procedure to challenge or correct that official record at the earliest opportunity, rather than attempting to re-litigate the record on appeal by adducing self-serving notes.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The dispute began when Vietnam Oil and Gas Group applied to the General Division of the High Court to set aside an arbitral award. The application was brought under HC/OA 346/2024 (“OA 346”). In parallel, there was an application HC/SUM 988/2024 (“SUM 988”) concerning enforcement: the applicant sought to set aside an earlier order granting the respondent leave to enforce the arbitral award. The High Court heard OA 346 and SUM 988 together before a single judge (the “Judge”).
There were three hearings before the Judge. The first hearing took place on 19 July 2024 and was the substantive hearing for OA 346 and SUM 988. At the end of that hearing, the Judge reserved judgment. Shortly thereafter, at a second hearing on 23 July 2024, the Judge delivered a brief oral judgment. The Judge indicated agreement with the applicant that there were grounds to set aside the arbitral award, but instead of setting aside the award, the Judge ordered that the matter be remitted to the arbitral tribunal. A third hearing on 31 July 2024 addressed residual disagreement on the 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”), the applicant 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 the applicant had established grounds to set aside the award. The present application concerned only CA 48.
In CA 48, the applicant’s central contention was that the Judge lacked jurisdiction to order remission because neither party had requested remission. The applicant relied on its reading of Art 34(4) of the UNCITRAL Model Law, which provides that the court may suspend setting-aside proceedings “where appropriate and so requested by a party” to give the arbitral tribunal an opportunity to resume proceedings or take other action to eliminate the grounds for setting aside. The applicant argued that the “so requested by a party” requirement meant that a formal request was necessary, and that no such request was made at the hearing.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The Court of Appeal had to decide whether the applicant should be granted leave to adduce further evidence on appeal—specifically, the solicitor notes of what was said at the hearings below. This raised a procedural question: what legal framework governs the admission of further evidence on appeal in Singapore, and how does that framework apply when the proposed evidence is intended to contradict the trial judge’s notes of hearing/official record?
A second, closely related issue was whether the applicant could properly challenge the accuracy of the judge’s notes in the appellate forum by adducing its own contemporaneous notes, particularly where there were no audio recordings of the hearings. The Court had to consider the status of the judge’s notes as the official record and the proper procedure for correcting or challenging that record.
Finally, the Court had to assess whether the proposed evidence was “material” to the appeal. Even if the applicant could, in principle, adduce further evidence, the Court needed to determine whether the solicitor notes would assist the appellate court in resolving the issues in CA 48—namely, whether remission was properly ordered under Art 34(4) and whether the “request” requirement was satisfied.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The Court began by addressing the parties’ disagreement on the applicable legal framework for adducing further evidence on appeal. In Singapore appellate practice, there are established principles for admitting further evidence, commonly associated with the Ladd v Marshall criteria. However, the Court noted that there are parallel regimes depending on the procedural context and the nature of the “further evidence” sought to be introduced. The Court’s analysis focused on whether the applicant’s application fit within the correct regime and, more importantly, whether the proposed evidence met the substantive requirements for admission.
On the facts, the applicant’s proposed evidence consisted of two sets of solicitor notes: notes taken by Ms Natalie Poh Yuxuan (“Ms Poh”) and notes taken by Mr Nguyen Trung Nam (“Mr Nguyen”). The applicant’s intended use was narrow but significant: it sought to show that neither party had made a request for remission at the 19 July 2024 hearing. The applicant pointed to a specific entry in the Judge’s notes, where the Judge recorded a submission by the respondent’s counsel: “If Court takes view that there was breach, submit that should remit to Tribunal.” The applicant alleged that this submission was never made and therefore that the respondent had not requested remission.
The Court of Appeal held that Mr Nguyen’s notes were not material to the appeal. The Court’s reasoning, as reflected in the judgment’s structure, indicates that the notes did not meaningfully advance the applicant’s case on the key issue—whether a request for remission was made. In other words, even if the notes were contemporaneous and were taken by the applicant’s solicitors, they did not sufficiently bear on the specific contention that remission was ordered without any request by a party under Art 34(4).
As for Ms Poh’s notes, the Court also found they were not material. The Court further addressed the applicant’s attempt to use the notes to challenge the veracity of the Judge’s notes. The Court emphasised that the Judge’s notes of hearing form the official record of the hearings. This is particularly important where there are no audio recordings. Under the Rules of Court 2021 (in particular, O 15 r 11(7)), the judge’s notes serve as the official record. Consequently, a party alleging that the official record contains an error cannot simply treat its own solicitor notes as a substitute record and ask the appellate court to prefer them.
The Court then addressed the procedural propriety of the applicant’s approach. It held that the applicant was not even entitled to raise the alleged error in the Judge’s notes in the appeal in the way it attempted. The Court reasoned that the applicant had not raised the alleged error before the Judge. The applicant’s failure to bring the issue to the Judge’s attention at the earliest opportunity undermined its attempt to correct the record indirectly on appeal. The Court characterised the correct approach as one where the party should raise the alleged discrepancy with the trial judge and seek correction of the official record through the proper procedure.
This reasoning reflects a broader civil procedure principle: appellate courts are not meant to become forums for reconstructing the trial record through competing private notes. Where the official record exists (here, the judge’s notes), the system requires parties to challenge it promptly and through the established mechanism for correcting the record. Otherwise, the appellate process would be destabilised by post hoc disputes about what was said at hearings.
In addition, the Court considered the applicant’s reliance on the Ladd v Marshall framework. The applicant argued that it did not need to satisfy the Ladd v Marshall conditions because the alleged error only became apparent after the Judge’s decision. The respondent argued that the Ladd v Marshall test applied because the notes related to matters occurring before the Judge’s decision, and the applicant failed to satisfy the “non-availability” and diligence requirements, given that more than six months had passed since the second hearing before the application was brought.
Although the Court’s conclusion turned on materiality and entitlement to raise the alleged error, its analysis also implicitly reinforces that diligence and proper procedural steps matter. Where a party can identify a discrepancy in the official record after judgment, it should act promptly to seek correction at the trial level. Waiting and then seeking to introduce private notes on appeal is not an acceptable substitute for the proper correction procedure.
What Was the Outcome?
The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to adduce further evidence. The Court held that neither Ms Poh’s nor Mr Nguyen’s notes were material to the appeal. It also held that the applicant was not entitled to raise the alleged error in the Judge’s notes in the appeal, given that the judge’s notes are the official record and the applicant had not followed the proper procedure to challenge or correct that record.
Practically, this means that the appellate court would proceed without the solicitor notes and would assess the remission issue based on the official record and the arguments properly raised. The applicant’s attempt to undermine the “request” requirement under Art 34(4) by contradicting the judge’s recorded submission therefore failed at the procedural threshold.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This decision is significant for arbitration-related civil procedure in Singapore because it clarifies how parties should handle disputes about what was said at hearings below when there are no audio recordings. In many arbitration enforcement and setting-aside proceedings, hearings may be conducted without full transcription, and the judge’s notes become the operative record. Vietnam Oil and Gas Group underscores that parties cannot treat their own contemporaneous notes as a parallel record to be used on appeal to contradict the judge’s notes.
For practitioners, the case highlights a practical litigation discipline: if a party believes the official record is inaccurate, it must raise the issue with the trial judge and seek correction promptly. Waiting until the appeal stage risks both procedural rejection and substantive disadvantage. The Court’s insistence that the applicant was “not even entitled” to raise the alleged error in the appeal in the manner attempted signals that appellate courts will protect the integrity of the official record and discourage indirect reconstruction of proceedings through private notes.
From a precedent perspective, the case also contributes to the jurisprudence on the admission of further evidence on appeal. While the Court engaged with the Ladd v Marshall framework and the existence of parallel regimes, the decision ultimately turns on materiality and entitlement, rather than on a purely technical assessment of whether the notes were “newly available.” This makes the case particularly useful for lawyers preparing appeal bundles: it is not enough that evidence is contemporaneous or that it appears to contradict the record; it must be relevant to the issues on appeal and must be introduced through the proper procedural pathway.
Legislation Referenced
- International Arbitration Act 1994 (2020 Rev Ed), First Schedule
- First Schedule of the International Arbitration Act 1994 (incorporating the UNCITRAL Model Law)
- UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, Art 34(4)
- Supreme Court of Judicature Act
- Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969
- Rules of Court 2021, O 15 r 11(7)
Cases Cited
- Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489
- [2021] SGHC 110
- [2023] SGCA 29
- [2024] SGHC 244
- [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.