Permasteelisa v Hyundai: Arbitration Award Recourse & Misconduct Claim

In Permasteelisa Pacific Holdings Ltd v Hyundai Engineering and Construction Co Ltd, the Singapore High Court heard an application by Permasteelisa (PISA) against Hyundai, seeking to set aside or appeal an arbitration award related to a sub-contract for curtain-walling and glazing works. PISA alleged arbitrator misconduct and sought leave to appeal on questions of law. The High Court allowed the application in part, remitting certain matters to the arbitrator for reconsideration, including the apportionment of liquidated damages, the claim for additional preliminaries, the balance of work done, and the claim for the cost of replacement of original stayarms.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application allowed in part. Certain matters remitted to the arbitrator for reconsideration.

1.3 Case Type

Arbitration

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

High Court case regarding recourse against an arbitration award. PISA sought to set aside the award based on arbitrator misconduct.

1.7 Decision Date

14 February 2005

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Permasteelisa Pacific Holdings Ltd	Applicant	Corporation	Application allowed in part	Partial	Monica Neo of ChanTan LLC George Tan of ChanTan LLC
Hyundai Engineering and Construction Co Ltd	Respondent	Corporation	Application dismissed in part	Partial	Tan Liam Beng of Drew and Napier LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Judith Prakash	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Monica Neo	ChanTan LLC
George Tan	ChanTan LLC
Tan Liam Beng	Drew and Napier LLC

4. Facts

Hyundai was the main contractor for a construction project.
PISA was engaged as the nominated sub-contractor for curtain-walling and glazing.
Disputes arose between PISA and Hyundai regarding the sub-contract works.
PISA claimed the works were completed by November 15, 2000.
Hyundai alleged the works were incomplete due to scratched glass panels.
An arbitrator was appointed to resolve the disputes.
The arbitrator awarded Hyundai $1,463,481.55 on its counterclaim.

5. Formal Citations

Permasteelisa Pacific Holdings Ltd v Hyundai Engineering and Construction Co Ltd, OM 5/2004, [2005] SGHC 33

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1997-08-02	Sub-contract works commencement date
1998-08-14	Sub-contract dated
1999-08-10	Original completion date for main contract works
2000-11-15	PISA claimed sub-contract works completed
2001-08-17	PISA gave notice to Hyundai of intention to refer disputes to arbitration
2001-12-19	President of the SIA appointed Mr Johnny Tan Cheng Hye as the sole arbitrator
2002-03-12	Architect granted extension of time for the Sub-Contract Completion Date to 31 July 2001
2002-09-19	Arbitration hearing began
2003-05-16	Arbitration hearing concluded
2004-01-31	Arbitrator delivered the Award
2004-02-19	PISA filed proceedings seeking to set aside the Award
2004-03-16	Arbitrator corrected the Award
2005-02-15	Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

Misconduct of Arbitration Proceedings
- Outcome: The court found that the arbitrator had misconducted the proceedings in certain instances, including the apportionment of liquidated damages and the failure to make an award for the balance of work done.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Failure to consider relevant evidence
  - Reliance on inadmissible evidence
  - Failure to provide opportunity to rebut evidence
Interpretation of Contract Clauses
- Outcome: The court granted leave to appeal on the question of whether it was necessary for a sub-contractor to object to the classification of the architect’s instructions or directions before the arbitrator was entitled to review a claim made by the sub-contractor for variations.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Interpretation of completion certificate clause
  - Interpretation of temporary protection clause
  - Interaction of sub-contract and main contract conditions
Leave to Appeal on Questions of Law
- Outcome: The court granted leave to appeal on one question of law and denied leave to appeal on other questions of law.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Determination of a question of law
  - Substantial effect on the rights of the parties
  - Clarity and certainty of Singapore law
Causation of Delay
- Outcome: The court remitted the matter to the arbitrator to determine the extent to which PISA's delay caused or contributed to the overall project delay.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Contribution to overall project delay
  - Apportionment of liquidated damages

8. Remedies Sought

Setting aside of arbitration award
Leave to appeal on questions of law
Remission of matter to arbitrator

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

Arbitration
Construction Disputes
Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Pioneer Shipping Ltd v BTP Tioxide Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1982] AC 724	N/A	Cited for principles to be applied regarding leave to appeal to the court under s 28 of the Act.
Hong Huat Development Co (Pte) Ltd v Hiap Hong & Co Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2000] 2 SLR 609	Singapore	Cited for principles to be applied regarding leave to appeal to the court under s 28 of the Act.
Northern Elevator Manufacturing Sdn Bhd v United Engineers (Singapore) Pte Ltd (No 2)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2004] 2 SLR 494	Singapore	Cited for principles to be applied regarding leave to appeal to the court under s 28 of the Act and clarification of what constitutes a 'question of law'.
Ahong Construction (S) Pte Ltd v United Boulevard Pte Ltd	N/A	Yes	[2000] 1 SLR 749	Singapore	Cited for the definition of a 'question of law' in the context of arbitration appeals.
Italmare Shipping Co v Ocean Tanker Co Inc (The Rio Sun)	N/A	Yes	[1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 489	N/A	Cited to show a rejected view that the application of law to facts can raise a question of law even if there is no dispute as to the general law.
L & M Airconditioning & Refrigeration (Pte) Ltd v SA Shee & Co (Pte) Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1993] 3 SLR 482	Singapore	Cited for the proposition that a sub-contractor can be liable for liquidated damages the main contractor has been made to pay if the sub-contractor caused or contributed to the delay.
Goh Kian Swee v Keng Seng Builders (Pte) Ltd	High Court	Yes	[1992] SGHC 26	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a claim for damages may be disallowed if the main contractor cannot identify what part of the delay was caused by the sub-contractor.
Modern Engineering (Bristol) Ltd v C Miskin & Sons Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 135	N/A	Cited for the principle that making an award before one party’s submissions on a point had been heard was equivalent to hearing evidence in the absence of a party.
Mooney v Henry Boot Construction Ltd	N/A	Yes	Mooney v Henry Boot Construction Ltd (1995) 53 Con LR 120	N/A	Cited for the principle that an arbitrator had failed to give a party any proper opportunity of dealing with the method he adopted to assess the disputed items in the Scott Schedule.
Montrose Canned Foods, Ltd v Eric Wells (Merchants), Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1965] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 597	N/A	Cited for the principle that an arbitrator should not make findings based on the evidence of one party that had not been seen by the other.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 1985 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Arbitration
Sub-contract
Liquidated damages
Completion certificate
Misconduct
Extension of time
Variation works
Defective works
Apportionment
Delay

15.2 Keywords

arbitration award
misconduct
construction
sub-contract
liquidated damages
completion certificate
Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Arbitration	95
Contract Law	80
Construction Law	75
Damages	60
Construction Contracts	50

16. Subjects

Arbitration
Construction Dispute
Contract Law