Case Details
- Citation: [2025] SGCA 12
- Court: Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore
- Date: 2025-03-17
- Judges: Steven Chong JCA
- 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, First Schedule of the International Arbitration Act 1994, Supreme Court of Judicature Act, Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969
- Cases Cited: [2021] SGHC 110, [2023] SGCA 29, [2024] SGHC 244, [2025] SGCA 12
- Judgment Length: 24 pages, 7,533 words
Summary
This case involves an appeal by the Vietnam Oil and Gas Group against a decision by the Singapore Court of Appeal to remit an arbitral award back to the arbitral tribunal, rather than setting it aside. The key issue is whether the court had the jurisdiction to order remission when neither party had formally requested it. The applicant seeks to adduce additional evidence in the form of notes taken by its solicitors during the hearings below, in order to challenge the accuracy of the judge's notes which recorded a submission by the respondent requesting remission. The Court of Appeal must determine whether the applicant can adduce this additional evidence and whether the judge erred in ordering remission without a formal request from the parties.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The applicant, Vietnam Oil and Gas Group, applied to the Singapore High Court's General Division to set aside an arbitral award on various grounds, including breach of natural justice. This application was heard together with the applicant's separate application to set aside an earlier order granting the respondent, Joint Stock Company (Power Machines – ZTL, LMZ, Electrosila Energomachexport), leave to enforce the award.
The High Court judge heard three hearings on these applications. At the first hearing on 19 July 2024, the judge heard oral arguments from the parties. At the second hearing on 23 July 2024, the judge delivered a brief oral judgment agreeing that there were grounds to set aside the award, but instead ordering that the matter be remitted to the arbitral tribunal. The third hearing on 31 July 2024 addressed the terms of the remission order.
Both parties have filed appeals against the judge's decision. The applicant, in its appeal CA/CA 48/2024, argues that the judge did not have the jurisdiction to order remission as neither party had formally requested it. The respondent, in its separate appeal CA/CA 49/2024, challenges the judge's finding that the applicant had established grounds to set aside the award.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The key legal issue in this case is whether the judge had the jurisdiction to order remission of the arbitral award to the tribunal, when neither party had formally requested such an order.
The applicant argues that Article 34(4) of the UNCITRAL Model Law, which has the force of law in Singapore, requires a party to specifically request remission before the court can make such an order. The applicant contends that no such request was made by either party in this case.
The applicant also raises alternative arguments that even if a request for remission was made, the judge erred in making the order by reversing the burden of proof, breaching natural justice, and failing to provide reasons.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The Court of Appeal first considered the applicable legal framework for adducing additional evidence on appeal. It noted that there are two parallel regimes - the Ladd v Marshall test which applies to evidence relating to matters before the judge's decision, and a more flexible approach for evidence relating to matters that only emerged after the decision.
The court found that the applicant's attempt to adduce the solicitors' notes fell under the Ladd v Marshall test, as the notes related to the 19 July 2024 and 23 July 2024 hearings which occurred before the judge's decision. The court then examined whether the applicant had satisfied the Ladd v Marshall criteria of showing that the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at trial, that the evidence would probably have an important influence on the result of the case, and that the evidence is credible.
On the issue of the judge's jurisdiction to order remission, the court analyzed the wording of Article 34(4) of the Model Law. It considered whether the provision's use of the phrase "so requested by a party" meant that a formal application was required, or whether an informal request during the hearing would suffice. The court also examined the proper procedure for challenging alleged errors in the judge's official record of the hearing.
What Was the Outcome?
The Court of Appeal ultimately dismissed the applicant's application to adduce the additional evidence of the solicitors' notes. It found that the applicant had failed to satisfy the Ladd v Marshall test, as it had not raised the alleged error in the judge's notes with the judge at the earliest opportunity.
The court held that the judge's notes were the official record of the hearing, and the proper procedure for the applicant to challenge any alleged errors in that record was to raise the issue directly with the judge, not to attempt to adduce contradictory evidence on appeal. As the applicant had not done so, it was not entitled to raise the issue in the appeal.
The court therefore dismissed the applicant's application to adduce the additional evidence. The substantive appeal on the issue of the judge's jurisdiction to order remission will proceed based on the existing record.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case is significant for several reasons. Firstly, it provides guidance on the proper procedure for challenging alleged errors in a judge's official record of a hearing. The court made clear that the correct approach is to raise the issue directly with the judge at the earliest opportunity, rather than attempting to adduce contradictory evidence on appeal.
Secondly, the case offers an important interpretation of Article 34(4) of the UNCITRAL Model Law, which governs the court's powers to remit an arbitral award back to the tribunal. The court's analysis of whether a formal request is required, or whether an informal request during the hearing is sufficient, will be highly relevant for future cases involving challenges to arbitral awards.
Finally, the case highlights the high bar that must be met under the Ladd v Marshall test to adduce fresh evidence on appeal. The court's finding that the applicant failed to satisfy this test, despite the evidence relating to alleged errors in the judge's notes, demonstrates the strict approach taken by Singapore courts to new evidence on appeal.
Legislation Referenced
- First Schedule of the International Arbitration Act
- First Schedule of the International Arbitration Act 1994
- Supreme Court of Judicature Act
- Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969
Cases Cited
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.