Sabah Shipyard v Government of Pakistan: Jurisdiction in Arbitration over Prior Proceedings' Costs
In Sabah Shipyard (Pakistan) Ltd v Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Singapore High Court, presided over by Judith Prakash J, addressed an application by Sabah Shipyard under Art 16(3) of the First Schedule of the International Arbitration Act for a declaration regarding the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal. The dispute centered on whether the tribunal in the second arbitration had jurisdiction to determine the costs arising from a prior related arbitration. The court dismissed the originating motion, holding that the arbitral tribunal in the Second Arbitration had jurisdiction to adjudicate on the dispute over the costs of the First Arbitration.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Originating motion dismissed with costs.
1.3 Case Type
Arbitration
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Singapore High Court addressed whether an arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction over costs from prior arbitration proceedings. The court dismissed the originating motion.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sabah Shipyard (Pakistan) Ltd | Applicant | Corporation | Originating motion dismissed | Lost | |
| Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan | Respondent | Government Agency | Motion opposing applicant upheld | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Judith Prakash | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Nicholas Narayanan | Ang and Partners |
| Michael Hwang | Michael Hwang |
| Jeffrey Ong | Ang and Partners |
| Davinder Singh | Drew and Napier LLC |
4. Facts
- Sabah Shipyard and the Government of Pakistan entered into an Implementation Agreement in March 1996.
- The IA contained an arbitration clause providing for arbitration in Singapore under ICC Rules.
- The Government of Pakistan purportedly terminated the IA on two occasions.
- Sabah Shipyard commenced arbitration proceedings against the Government of Pakistan in 1998.
- The first arbitration was terminated due to non-payment of costs by the Government of Pakistan.
- The Government of Pakistan commenced a second arbitration seeking costs from the first arbitration.
- Sabah Shipyard challenged the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal in the second arbitration.
5. Formal Citations
- Sabah Shipyard (Pakistan) Ltd v Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, OM 31/2003, [2004] SGHC 109
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Implementation Agreement signed | |
| Arbitration proceedings commenced | |
| ICC increased advance on costs | |
| Final time limit given to pay sum | |
| Claims considered withdrawn | |
| Respondent requested order for costs | |
| Respondent requested order for costs | |
| ICC responded to letters | |
| ICC responded to letters | |
| Second international arbitration commenced | |
| Applicant challenged jurisdiction | |
| ICC Court stated arbitration agreement may exist | |
| Arbitral tribunal delivered award on jurisdiction | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal
- Outcome: The court held that the arbitral tribunal in the Second Arbitration had jurisdiction to adjudicate on the dispute over the costs of the First Arbitration.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Scope of arbitration clause
- Interpretation of 'arising out of' and 'in connection with'
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration that the arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ashville Investments Ltd v Elmer Contractors Ltd | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1989] 1 QB 488 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the interpretation of specific words in an arbitration clause and that the court is not bound by the doctrine of stare decisis in interpreting specific words in an arbitration clause. |
| Union of India v E B Aaby’s Rederi A/S | House of Lords | Yes | [1975] AC 797 | United Kingdom | Cited for the proposition that a claim "arising out of" a contract would be a claim that concerned matters and questions referred to in that contract. |
| Getreide-Import-Gesellschaft mbH v Contimar SA Compania Industrial Comercial y Maritima | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1953] 1 WLR 793 | England and Wales | Cited as authority for the proposition that a claim which arises out of an arbitration, such as a claim for the costs of that arbitration, is not a claim which arises out of the underlying contract. |
| Hatfield v Health Insurance Commission | Federal Court of Australia | Yes | (1987) 77 ALR 103 | Australia | Cited to the effect that terms such as “relating to”, “in relation to” and “in connection with” may have a very wide operation but do not usually carry the widest possible ambit. |
| Melluish v London County Council | King's Bench Division | Yes | [1914] 3 KB 325 | England and Wales | Cited regarding whether a kitchen maid was employed “in connection with the serving of customers”. |
| Empresa Exportadora de Azucar v Industria Azucarera Nacional SA (The Playa Larga) | Not Available | Yes | [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 171 | Not Available | Cited to show that a claim in tort could fall within the ambit of an arbitration clause if the contractual and tortious disputes were so closely knitted together on the facts, that the agreement to arbitrate on one could properly be construed as covering the other. |
| Government of Gibraltar v Kenney | English High Court | Yes | [1956] 2 QB 410 | England and Wales | Cited to show that when the frustration of a contract gave rise to a claim in quantum meruit or to a claim under the UK Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943, such claim was a claim “arising out of” the underlying contract. |
| Woolf v Collis Removal Service | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1948] 1 KB 11 | England and Wales | Cited to show that an alternative claim in negligence fell within the ambit of the words “in connection with”. |
| The Antonis P Lemos | House of Lords | Yes | [1985] AC 711 | United Kingdom | Cited for the proposition that “arising out of” may in certain contexts, on the ordinary and natural meaning of the words used, be the equivalent of the expression “connected with”. |
| The Indriani | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR 305 | Singapore | Cited to show that the phrase “arising out of” in s 3(1)(h) of the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 123, 1985 Rev Ed) should be interpreted widely to mean “connected with”. |
| Ethiopian Oilseeds & Pulses Export Corporation v Rio del Mar Foods Inc | Not Available | Yes | [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 86 | Not Available | Observed that he found it very difficult to make any distinction between the words “arising out of” and “arising in connection with”, the two phrases to him appearing to be practically synonymous. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Arbitration
- Jurisdiction
- Arbitral Tribunal
- Implementation Agreement
- ICC Rules
- Costs of Arbitration
- Arising out of
- In connection with
15.2 Keywords
- Arbitration
- Jurisdiction
- Costs
- Singapore
- International Arbitration
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Arbitration | 90 |
| International Arbitration | 75 |
| Contract Law | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure