Hong Huat v Hiap Hong: Arbitration Award Variation on Costs & Legal Principle Misapprehension
In a dispute between Hong Huat Development Co (Pte) Ltd and Hiap Hong & Company Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore, presided over by Judicial Commissioner Woo Bih Li, addressed further arguments on item (e) of an arbitration award and the issue of costs. The court maintained the arbitrator's award on item (e) but varied the award on costs, ordering the Respondents to pay 75% of the arbitration costs and the Appellants to pay the quantity surveyor's fees. The Appellants were awarded costs for Originating Motion 12 of 1999 up to 6 July 2000, while each party bore its own costs for the hearing on 26 July 2000. The costs of the hearing before Justice Lai Kew Chai were to follow the previous order.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Arbitrator's award on costs varied; Appellants awarded costs of Originating Motion 12 of 1999 up to 6 July 2000.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
High Court judgment on arbitration costs dispute between Hong Huat and Hiap Hong, addressing legal principle misapprehension and award variation.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hong Huat Development Co (Pte) Ltd | Applicant, Appellant | Corporation | Costs of Originating Motion 12 of 1999 awarded | Partial | Lawrence Teh |
| Hiap Hong & Company Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Arbitration costs partially borne | Partial | John Chung, Sharon Tay |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Woo Bih Li | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Lawrence Teh | Rodyk & Davidson |
| John Chung | Khattar Wong & Partners |
| Sharon Tay | Donaldson & Burkinshaw |
4. Facts
- Appellants sought further arguments on item (e) of the arbitration award.
- Appellants requested variation of the arbitrator’s award on costs.
- Respondents paid back the amount in item (e) to the Appellants, who complained it was an over-certified sum.
- The certificate was not amended to reflect the payment of item (e).
- Appellants did not want item (e) to be remitted back to the arbitrator.
- The court determined that items (a) to (d), on which the Appellants succeeded, were responsible for part of the arbitration costs.
- The quantity surveyor was appointed at the request of the arbitrator.
5. Formal Citations
- Hong Huat Development Co (Pte) Ltd v Hiap Hong & Company Pte Ltd, OM 12/1999, CA 85/1999, [2000] SGHC 160
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Originating Motion 12/1999 filed | |
| Civil Appeal 85/1999 filed | |
| Judgment delivered; question of costs reserved | |
| Further arguments heard on item (e) and costs | |
| Grounds of Decision on Further Arguments and on Costs issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Variation of Arbitrator's Award on Costs
- Outcome: The court varied the arbitrator's award on costs.
- Category: Procedural
- Misapprehension of Legal Principle by Arbitrator
- Outcome: The court maintained the arbitrator's award on item (e) despite a possible misapprehension of a legal principle.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Variation of Arbitrator's Award
- Costs
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Arbitration
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anglo-Saxon Petroleum v Adamastos Shipping Co Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | (1957) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 73 | England | Cited regarding the court's power to substitute its own order as to costs for that of the trial judge. |
| Tramountana Armadora S.A. v Atlantic Shipping Co S.A. | N/A | Yes | (1978) 1 Lloyd’s Law Reports 391 | N/A | Cited regarding the court's power to vary an arbitrator's award on costs. |
| Demolition & Construction Company Ltd v Kent River Board | N/A | Yes | (1963) 2 Lloyd’s Law Reports 7 | N/A | Cited regarding the court's power to vary an arbitrator's award on costs. |
| Cargill Inc v Margo Ltd | N/A | Yes | (1983) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 570 | N/A | Cited as an illustration where the court varied awards on costs after decisions on non-cost issues were made. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Arbitration Award
- Costs
- Variation
- Legal Principle
- Misapprehension
- Quantity Surveyor
- Calderbank Letters
15.2 Keywords
- Arbitration
- Costs
- Singapore
- High Court
- Variation
- Legal Principle
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- Costs
- Civil Procedure
17. Areas of Law
- Arbitration Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law