Hong Huat Development v Hiap Hong: Appeal Against Refusal to Grant Leave to Appeal Arbitration Award

In Hong Huat Development Co (Pte) Ltd v Hiap Hong & Co Pte Ltd, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal by Hong Huat Development Co (Pte) Ltd against the High Court's decision to refuse an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal against an arbitration award in favor of Hiap Hong & Co Pte Ltd, and refusing to set aside the award on the ground of alleged misconduct on the part of the arbitrator. The underlying dispute arose from a building contract. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, granting an extension of time and leave to appeal, and ordering that the hearing of the appeal should proceed in the High Court.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal allowed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal against the High Court's decision to refuse an extension of time to appeal an arbitration award. The court addressed the time limit for appeal and arbitrator misconduct.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Hiap Hong & Co Pte LtdRespondentCorporationAppeal allowed in partPartial
Hong Huat Development Co (Pte) LtdAppellantCorporationAppeal allowed in partPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJustice of the Court of AppealYes
Tan Lee MengJudgeNo
L P TheanJustice of the Court of AppealNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
John ChungDonaldson & Burkinshaw
Sharon TayDonaldson & Burkinshaw
Lawrence TehRodyk & Davidson

4. Facts

  1. Hong Huat Development was the owner of a shopping center development.
  2. Hiap Hong & Co was the main contractor for the development.
  3. A written agreement was signed between the parties on 27 January 1979 for $10,243,091.26.
  4. The contract incorporated the 1979 Singapore Institute of Architects Standard Conditions of Building Contracts.
  5. Disputes arose over amounts recoverable under the final certificate, delayed issuance of interim certificates, and late release of retention sums.
  6. The disputes were referred to arbitration, and Raymond Kuah was appointed as the arbitrator.
  7. The arbitrator accepted his appointment on 4 October 1986.
  8. The hearing before the arbitrator was completed by 18 March 1988.
  9. The arbitrator requested a quantity surveyor be appointed to assist him on certain aspects of valuation on 15 June 1990.
  10. The arbitrator wrote to the parties on 30 August 1993 stating that he would be able to publish his award by the beginning of October 1993.
  11. The arbitrator wrote to the parties on 24 December 1998 stating that he had made the arbitration award and that this would be released or delivered to either party upon payment of the balance of his fees amounting to $47,516.
  12. The respondents paid the fees to the arbitrator on 8 March 1999, obtained the award and forwarded a copy of it to the appellants` solicitors the same day.
  13. The award was in favour of the respondents, granting them substantially all the reliefs they had sought, subject to a substantial reduction on the claim under the final certificate.
  14. The appellants did not dispute the award relating to the final certificate and had paid the adjudicated sum of $351,642.06 due to the respondents.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Hong Huat Development Co (Pte) Ltd v Hiap Hong & Co Pte Ltd, CA 85/1999, [2000] SGCA 14

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Contract signed
Building works commenced
Arbitrator accepted appointment
Hearing before the arbitrator was completed
Arbitrator requested appointment of quantity surveyor
Parties agreed to appoint quantity surveyor
Arbitrator stated award would be published by October 1993
Arbitrator stated arbitration award was made
Appellants received arbitrator's letter
Respondents paid fees, obtained award, and forwarded copy to appellants
Appellants filed notice of originating motion
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Extension of Time for Appeal
    • Outcome: Extension of time granted.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Reasons for delay
      • Prospects of success
      • Prejudice
  2. Implied Term in Contract
    • Outcome: Court found a strong prima facie case that the arbitrator was wrong in his determination as to the nature and/or extent of the implied duty of the appellants in relation to the discharge of the certifying obligations of the architect under the contract.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Employer's duty to ensure proper discharge by architect
      • Nature and extent of implied duty
      • Premised on knowledge that architect was in default
  3. Misconduct of Arbitrator
    • Outcome: Court found no good ground to set aside the award.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Prolonged delay in delivering award
      • Deficiencies in award and reasoning

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Leave to appeal against arbitration award
  2. Setting aside of arbitration award

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Arbitration
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Construction Law

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Chen Chien Wen Edwin v PearsonHigh CourtYes[1991] SLR 212SingaporeCited for the factors to consider when granting an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.
Chen Chien Wen Edwin v PearsonHigh CourtYes[1991] 3 MLJ 208MalaysiaCited for the factors to consider when granting an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.
The Nema; BTP Tioxide v Pioneer Shipping LtdCourt of AppealYes[1980] QB 547EnglandCited regarding the requirement for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
The Rio Sun; Italmare Shipping Co v Ocean Tanker Co IncCourt of AppealYes[1982] 1 All ER 517EnglandCited regarding the requirement for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
The Rio Sun; Italmare Shipping Co v Ocean Tanker Co IncCourt of AppealYes[1982] 1 WLR 158EnglandCited regarding the requirement for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Mebro Oil SA v Gatoil International IncN/AYes[1985] 2 Lloyd`s Rep 235N/ACited regarding the time limit for applications for leave and appeals.
Brooke v MitchellN/AYes[1840] 9 LJ Ex 269N/ACited for the principle that an award is made and published when notice is given that it is ready for collection.
The Archipelagos and Delfi; Bulk Transport Corp v Sissy Steamship Co LtdN/AYes[1979] 2 Lloyd`s Rep 289N/AReaffirmed the rule in Brooke v Mitchell regarding when an award is made and published.
Musselbrook v DunkinN/AYes(1833) 9 Bing 605N/ACited as an earlier authority consistent with Brooke v Mitchell.
Musselbrook v DunkinN/AYes131 ER 741N/ACited as an earlier authority consistent with Brooke v Mitchell.
Macarthur v CampbellN/AYes(1833) 5 B & AdN/ACited as an earlier authority consistent with Brooke v Mitchell.
Macarthur v CampbellN/AYes110 ER 882N/ACited as an earlier authority consistent with Brooke v Mitchell.
Mortgage Corp Ltd v Sandoes & OrsN/AYes[1996] TLR 751N/ACited regarding principles for extension of time for interlocutory matters, distinguished from appeals.
The Tokai MaruCourt of AppealYes[1998] 3 SLR 105SingaporeCited for the principle that a more stringent approach applies to applications to appeal out of time.
The Faith; International Petroleum Refining & Supply Sdad v Elpis FinanceN/AYes[1993] 2 Lloyd`s Rep 408EnglandCited regarding the court's discretion to extend time in arbitration matters and the principle of finality.
The NemaCourt of AppealYes[1980] QB 547EnglandCited regarding the principles and policy applicable to arbitration matters.
American Home Assurance Co v Hong Lam Marine Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[1999] 3 SLR 682SingaporeCited for the development of guidelines on granting leave to appeal in arbitration cases.
The Nema; Pioneer Shipping Ltd v BTP TioxideHouse of LordsYes[1982] AC 724EnglandCited for guidelines on granting leave to appeal in arbitration cases.
The Antaios; Antaios Compania Naviera SA v Salen Rederierna ABHouse of LordsYes[1985] AC 191EnglandCited for guidelines on granting leave to appeal in arbitration cases.
Frederick Leyland & Co Ltd v Panamena Europea Navigacion CiaN/AYes[1943] 76 LI L Rep 113N/ACited for the principle that an employer is liable for the default of the architect if the employer was aware of such default.
Perini Corp v Commonwealth of AustraliaN/AYes[1969] 12 BLR 82N/ACited for the principle that an employer is liable for the default of the architect if the employer was aware of such default.
Lubenham Fidelities and Investments Co Ltd v South Pembrokeshire District Council & AnorN/AYes[1986] 33 Build LR 39N/ACited regarding the architect's role and the employer's responsibility.
Ong Chen Leng v Tan Sau PooHigh CourtYes[1993] 3 SLR 137SingaporeCited regarding the inference of a representation made by solicitors.
The NemaCourt of AppealYes[1980] QB 547EnglandCited regarding the meaning of 'substantially affect the rights'.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 69 rr 2(2) Rules of Court (1997 Rev Ed)
O 69 r 4(2) Rules of Court (1997 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Arbitration Act (Cap 10)Singapore
s 28(2) Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 1985 Ed)Singapore
s 28(3) Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 1985 Ed)Singapore
s 28(7) Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 1985 Ed)Singapore
s 53 of the Interpretation Act (Cap 1)Singapore
s 18 of the ActSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Arbitration award
  • Extension of time
  • Leave to appeal
  • SIA Conditions
  • Implied term
  • Misconduct of arbitrator
  • Interim certificates
  • Final certificate
  • Retention sums
  • Architect's certification duties

15.2 Keywords

  • Arbitration
  • Building Contract
  • Extension of Time
  • Appeal
  • SIA Conditions
  • Architect
  • Misconduct

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Arbitration90
SIA Standard Conditions80
Breach of Contract75
Contract Law70
Construction Law60
Extension of Time50
Collections30

16. Subjects

  • Arbitration
  • Contract Law
  • Construction Law
  • Civil Procedure