Dalian Hualiang v Louis Dreyfus: Stay of Proceedings & International Arbitration Act Interpretation
In Dalian Hualiang Enterprise Group Co Ltd and Another v Louis Dreyfus Asia Pte Ltd, the Singapore High Court, presided over by Justice Woo Bih Li, heard an appeal regarding the stay of court proceedings in favor of arbitration. Dalian Hualiang Enterprise Group Co Ltd and Dalian Jinshi Oil-Making Co Ltd, the plaintiffs, sued Louis Dreyfus Asia Pte Ltd, the defendant, for payment of despatch money and overage premium under a sales contract. Louis Dreyfus sought a stay, arguing the dispute should be arbitrated in London per the contract's arbitration clause. The court allowed the appeal, finding that the set-off issue raised by Louis Dreyfus was not within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court addressed whether to stay proceedings under the International Arbitration Act, focusing on the existence of a dispute and the scope of the arbitration agreement.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dalian Hualiang Enterprise Group Co Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Appeal Allowed | Won | Michael Lai, Wendy Tan |
| Dalian Jinshi Oil-Making Co Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Appeal Allowed | Won | Michael Lai, Wendy Tan |
| Louis Dreyfus Asia Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | P Jeya Putra |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Woo Bih Li | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Michael Lai | Haq and Selvam |
| Wendy Tan | Haq and Selvam |
| P Jeya Putra | AsiaLegal LLC |
4. Facts
- DHE agreed to buy soya beans from Louis Dreyfus under Sales Contract No SBS 031103.
- The Armonikos contract was assigned by DHE to DJOM with Louis Dreyfus as a party to the assignment.
- DJOM claimed for payment of despatch money and overage premium under the Armonikos contract.
- Louis Dreyfus Beijing confirmed the amount payable via email.
- Louis Dreyfus applied for a stay of the action, seeking arbitration in London.
- Louis Dreyfus alleged DHE and DJOM were part of the JINSHI GROUP.
- Louis Dreyfus claimed a set-off from a running account with Guangdong Fuhong Edible Oil Co Ltd.
5. Formal Citations
- Dalian Hualiang Enterprise Group Co Ltd and Another v Louis Dreyfus Asia Pte Ltd, Suit 1002/2004, RA 129/2005, [2005] SGHC 161
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Sales Contract No SBS 031103 signed | |
| Armonikos contract assigned by DHE to DJOM | |
| Email from Sally Yang of Louis Dreyfus Beijing confirming amount payable | |
| First hearing of the appeal | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Stay of Court Proceedings
- Outcome: The court held that the set-off issue was not the subject of the arbitration agreement and allowed the appeal.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Jurisdiction to order stay
- Existence of a dispute
- Scope of Arbitration Agreement
- Outcome: The court found that the set-off issue was not within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Inclusion of set-off issue
- Interpretation of 'any dispute'
8. Remedies Sought
- Payment of despatch money
- Payment of overage premium
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Arbitration
11. Industries
- Commodities Trading
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coop International v Ebel SA | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 670 | Singapore | Cited regarding the resolution of disputes by the courts. |
| Re An Arbitration between Hohenzollern Actien Gesellschaft fur Locomotivban and The City of London Contract Corporation | N/A | Yes | (1886) 54 LT 596 | England | Cited for the interpretation of 'all disputes' in an arbitration agreement. |
| Gulf Canada Resources Ltd v Avochem International Ltd | Court of Appeal of British Columbia | Yes | 66 BCLR (2d) 114 | Canada | Cited regarding the court's jurisdiction on an application for a stay of proceedings. |
| Prince George (City) v McElhanney Engineering Services Ltd | Court of Appeal of British Columbia | Yes | [1995] 9 WWR 503 | Canada | Cited regarding the court's residual jurisdiction to refuse a stay. |
| Nova (Jersey) Knit Ltd v Kammgarn Spinnerei GmbH | House of Lords | Yes | [1977] 1 WLR 713 | England | Cited regarding the English courts' consideration of whether there was in fact a dispute before ordering a stay. |
| Halki Shipping Corporation v Sopex Oils Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 1 WLR 726 | England | Cited for the propositions regarding the meaning of 'dispute' under the English Arbitration Act 1996. |
| Getwick Engineers Ltd v Pilecon Engineering Ltd | N/A | Yes | (2002) 1020 HKCU 1 | Hong Kong | Cited regarding the principles in applications for stay. |
| The Dai Yun Shan | High Court | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR 508 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that 'so long as the claim is not admitted, a dispute exists.' |
| Hayter v Nelson Home Insurance Co | N/A | Yes | [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 265 | N/A | Cited for the meaning of 'disputes' or 'differences' in the context of an ordinary arbitration clause. |
| Kwan Im Tong Chinese Temple & Anor v Fong Choon Hung Construction Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 137 | Singapore | Cited regarding the principles used in summary judgment proceedings should not be an exhaustive means of weighing the claims. |
| Uni-Navigation Pte Ltd v Wei Loong Shipping Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1993] 1 SLR 876 | Singapore | Cited regarding the court should adopt a holistic and commonsense approach to see if there is a dispute. |
| Nanisivik Mines Ltd v Canarctic Shipping Co Ltd | Federal Court of Appeal | Yes | (1994) 113 DLR (4th) 536 | Canada | Cited regarding the mandatory legislative requirement that a dispute, subject of an arbitration agreement, be referred to that arbitration. |
| Automatic Systems Inc v Bracknell Corp | Ontario Court of Appeal | Yes | (1994) 113 DLR (4th) 449 | Canada | Cited regarding the legislature is even more in favour of enforcing arbitration clauses in contracts than it was formerly. |
| Methanex New Zealand Ltd v Fontaine Navigation SA | Federal Court of Canada | Yes | [1998] 2 FC 583 | Canada | Cited for the proposition that a court will not order a stay if there is no genuine dispute. |
| Baltimar Aps Ltd v Nalder & Biddle Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 3 NZLR 129 | New Zealand | Cited regarding the court has no power under the 1982 Act to rule on whether there is a genuine dispute. |
| PT Budi Semesta Satria v Concordia Agritrading Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1998] SGHC 127 | Singapore | Cited regarding a stay is mandatory unless the party resisting the stay satisfies the Court that the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. |
| Mancon (BVI) Investment Holding Co Ltd v Heng Holdings SEA (Pte) Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR 220 | Singapore | Cited regarding a dispute or difference having arisen, the mode and the place of resolution that the parties had agreed on ought to be adhered to. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Section 6(1) International Arbitration Act | Singapore |
| Section 6(2) International Arbitration Act | Singapore |
| Section 6(2) Arbitration Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Arbitration agreement
- Stay of proceedings
- International Arbitration Act
- FOSFA
- Armonikos contract
- Hanjin Tacoma contract
- JINSHI GROUP
- Set-off
- Running account
- Admission of debt
15.2 Keywords
- arbitration
- stay of proceedings
- international arbitration act
- contract
- dispute
- set-off
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
17. Areas of Law
- Arbitration Law
- International Arbitration
- Civil Procedure