Jurong Engineering v Black & Veatch: Dispute Over SIAC Arbitration Rules Applicability

In Jurong Engineering Ltd v Black & Veatch Singapore Pte Ltd, the Singapore High Court addressed a dispute over which set of Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) rules should govern an arbitration between the parties. Jurong Engineering sought a declaration that the arbitration clause in their contract referred to the SIAC's rules generally, not specifically the SIAC Rules, and requested an order for costs. The High Court granted Jurong Engineering's application, ruling that the SIAC Domestic Rules applied to this domestic case and ordered costs to be paid by the defendants.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiffs’ application allowed with costs

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court case between Jurong Engineering and Black & Veatch concerning which SIAC arbitration rules apply. The court ruled in favor of Jurong Engineering.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Jurong Engineering LtdPlaintiffCorporationApplication AllowedWon
Black & Veatch Singapore Pte LtdDefendantCorporationApplication DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lai Kew ChaiJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Christopher ChongWong Partnership
Mohan PillayWong Partnership
Martin NgWong Partnership
Vivien TengRajah and Tann
V K Rajah SCRajah and Tann

4. Facts

  1. Jurong Engineering and Black & Veatch entered into a contract on 4 January 2000.
  2. The contract involved Jurong Engineering erecting steel works for a power plant in Tuas, Singapore.
  3. A dispute arose, and Jurong Engineering issued a Notice of Arbitration on 10 July 2003.
  4. Arbitration was commenced under the SIAC Domestic Rules.
  5. SIAC Domestic Rules came into existence on 1 May 2001, after the contract was made.
  6. Black & Veatch contended that the SIAC Rules should apply, as they were the only rules in existence at the time of the contract.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Jurong Engineering Ltd v Black & Veatch Singapore Pte Ltd, OS 1205/2003, [2003] SGHC 292

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Contract Structural Steel 61.4001 signed
SIAC Domestic Rules came into existence
Plaintiffs issued Notice of Arbitration
SIAC asked permission to file a brief
First hearing adjourned
Originating Summons heard
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Applicability of Arbitration Rules
    • Outcome: The court held that the arbitration clause referred to the rules of the SIAC generally at the time of submission to arbitration, not specifically the SIAC Rules.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Interpretation of arbitration clause
      • Choice of law
      • Party autonomy
    • Related Cases:
      • [1922] 10 LLLR 584
      • [1979] LR 279
      • [1981] 2 LR 583
      • [ 1998] 2 LLR 76

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaratory Judgment
  2. Costs

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Arbitration
  • Construction Law
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Construction
  • Energy

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Perez v John Mercer & SonsEnglish Court of AppealYes[1922] 10 LLLR 584England and WalesCited for the principle that a general reference to arbitration rules refers to the rules in force at the time of submission to arbitration, not at the time of the contract.
Bunge S.A v KruseN/AYes[1979] LR 279N/ACited for the principle that procedural rules are those in force when the time for invoking and acting on the procedural provisions arises.
Cremer v GranariaN/AYes[1981] 2 LR 583N/ACited for the principle that the applicable arbitration rules were those in force at the date when the arbitration was invoked.
China Agribusiness Development Corporation v Balli TradingN/AYes[ 1998] 2 LLR 76N/ACited for the principle that if an arbitration agreement requires arbitration to be held according to the rules of a particular institution, that agreement prima facie refers to the rules current at the time when the arbitration is begun.
Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Hansen-TangenHouse of LordsYes[ 1976] 3 All ER 570England and WalesCited for the principle that the surrounding circumstances of the contract are to be taken into account when construing a contract.
Prenn v SimmondsN/AYes[1971] 3 All ER 237N/ACited for the principle that evidence of negotiations or of the parties’ intentions ought not to be received when construing a written document.
MCST Plan No 1933 v Liang Huat Aluminium LtdN/AYes[2001] 3 SLR 253SingaporeCited for the principle that evidence of negotiations or of the parties’ intentions ought not to be received when construing a written document.
Pacific Century Regional Development Ltd v Canadian Imperial Investment Ptd LtdCourt of AppealYes[2001] 2 SLR 443SingaporeCited for the principle that the subjective intention of a party should not be considered by the court when construing a written document.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Arbitration Act (Cap. 10)Singapore
International Arbitration Act (Cap. 143A)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Arbitration
  • SIAC
  • SIAC Domestic Rules
  • SIAC Rules
  • Arbitration Clause
  • Domestic Arbitration
  • International Arbitration
  • Party Autonomy

15.2 Keywords

  • Arbitration
  • SIAC
  • Singapore
  • Construction
  • Contract
  • Rules
  • Domestic
  • International

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Arbitration95
Contract Law80
Commercial Disputes60

16. Subjects

  • Arbitration
  • Contract Law
  • Construction Law