Lum Chang v Anderson Land: Challenging Arbitration Award Under Section 22 of the Arbitration Act
Lum Chang Building Contractors Pte Ltd appealed against a decision regarding an arbitration award involving Anderson Land Pte Ltd. The High Court, under s 22 of the Arbitration Act, had ordered the arbitration. Lum Chang was dissatisfied with the interim award and sought to challenge it. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the reference to arbitration was not pursuant to an arbitration agreement but directed by the court under s 22. The court also clarified that an appeal against such an award lies directly to the Court of Appeal.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal concerning the procedure to challenge an arbitral award under s 22 of the Arbitration Act. The Court of Appeal held that the appeal lies directly to the Court of Appeal.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lum Chang Building Contractors Pte Ltd | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Anderson Land Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of Appeal | Yes |
| Tan Lee Meng | Judge | No |
| L P Thean | Justice of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Anderson Land were the developers of a condominium project.
- Lum Chang were the main contractors for the project.
- Tan Chiang was one of the nominated sub-contractors of Lum Chang.
- Disputes arose between Lum Chang and Anderson Land concerning the late delivery of marble tiles.
- Tan Chiang commenced Suit 1414/95 against Anderson Land for payment of marble tiles supplied to the project.
- The High Court ordered the action be stayed and the entire matter be referred to arbitration under s 22 of the Arbitration Act.
- Lum Chang applied for leave to appeal against the arbitrator's interim award but later sought a declaration that leave was not required.
5. Formal Citations
- Lum Chang Building Contractors Pte Ltd v Anderson Land Pte Ltd, CA 137/1999, [2000] SGCA 18
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Disputes arose between Lum Chang and Anderson Land concerning the late delivery of marble tiles. | |
| Tan Chiang commenced Suit 1414/95 against Anderson Land for payment of marble tiles. | |
| Choo Han Teck JC ordered the action be stayed and the entire matter be referred to arbitration. | |
| The arbitrator delivered an interim award touching only on the issue of extension of time. | |
| Lum Chang applied under s 28 of the Arbitration Act for leave to appeal against Mr Giam`s award. | |
| Lum Chang filed SIC 3610/99 seeking a declaration that leave to appeal was not required and for an extension of time to apply to set aside the award. | |
| Appeal dismissed. |
7. Legal Issues
- Procedure to challenge an arbitral award under s 22 of the Arbitration Act
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that an appeal against an award pursuant to a s 22 reference lies directly to the Court of Appeal.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Time frame for applying to set aside the award
- Jurisdiction of the High Court to extend time
- Necessity of court adoption of the award
- Whether the reference to arbitration was pursuant to an arbitration agreement
- Outcome: The Court held that the reference to arbitration was not pursuant to an arbitration agreement but was directed by the court under s 22 of the Arbitration Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Extension of time to file an application to set aside the award
- Outcome: The Court refused to grant an extension of time to enable Lum Chang to file an application out of time to set aside the award.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1991] 1 MLJ 111
- [1964] MLJ 75
- [1939] 3 All ER 916
- [1907] 1 KB 1
- [1974] 1 MLJ 31
- [1981] 1 MLJ 271
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside of arbitral award
- Leave to appeal against arbitral award
- Extension of time to file application to set aside award
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Arbitration
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Darlington Wagon Co v Harding | Queen's Bench Division | Yes | [1891] 1 QB 245 | England and Wales | Cited to explain the mode of carrying out references under s 22 of the Arbitration Act. |
| Dyke v Cannell | Queen's Bench Division | Yes | [1883] 11 QBD 180 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the effect of a referee's report and when it can be impeached, distinguished on the basis that only questions of fact were referred to the referee. |
| Bedborough v The Army & Navy Hotel Co | Chancery Division | Yes | [1884] 53 LJ Ch 658 | England and Wales | Followed Dyke v Cannell regarding the effect of a referee's report. |
| Proudfoot v Hart | Queen's Bench Division | Yes | [1890] 25 QBD 42 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the procedure after a referee makes a report and directs judgment to be entered. |
| Asia Commercial Finance (M) Bhd v Pasadena Properties Development Sdn Bhd | N/A | Yes | [1991] 1 MLJ 111 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that error of law or otherwise on the part of solicitors is not a sufficient ground to grant an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. |
| Abdul Majeed v Yeo Chng Tay | N/A | Yes | [1964] MLJ 75 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that error of law or otherwise on the part of solicitors is not a sufficient ground to grant an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. |
| Gatti v Shoosmith | N/A | Yes | [1939] 3 All ER 916 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that error of law or otherwise on the part of solicitors is not a sufficient ground to grant an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. |
| Re Coles and Ravenshear | King's Bench Division | Yes | [1907] 1 KB 1 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that error of law or otherwise on the part of solicitors is not a sufficient ground to grant an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. |
| Cheah Teong Tat v Ho Gee Seng & Ors | N/A | Yes | [1974] 1 MLJ 31 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that error of law or otherwise on the part of solicitors is not a sufficient ground to grant an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. |
| Tan Chai Heng v Yeo Seng Choon | N/A | Yes | [1981] 1 MLJ 271 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that error of law or otherwise on the part of solicitors is not a sufficient ground to grant an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. |
| Glasbrook v Owen | N/A | Yes | [1890] 7 TLR 62 | England and Wales | Discusses the interpretation of 'equivalent to the verdict of a jury' in the context of an official referee's report. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 69 r 4 Rules of Court |
| O 57 r 4(a) Rules of Court |
| O 57 r 9A(5) of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 1985 Rev Ed) s 22 | Singapore |
| Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 1985 Rev Ed) s 23(2) | Singapore |
| Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 1985 Rev Ed) s 28 | Singapore |
| Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 1985 Rev Ed) s 2 | Singapore |
| Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 1985 Rev Ed) s 21 | Singapore |
| Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 1985 Rev Ed) s 23(1) | Singapore |
| Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 1985 Rev Ed) s 25 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Arbitration award
- Arbitration agreement
- Section 22 Arbitration Act
- Extension of time
- Setting aside
- Reference to arbitration
- Interim award
- Equivalent to judgment of a judge
15.2 Keywords
- Arbitration
- Arbitration Act
- Section 22
- Appeal
- Setting aside
- Extension of time
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Arbitration | 95 |
| Contract Law | 40 |
| Civil Procedure | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- Civil Procedure