Progen Engineering v Chua Aik Kia: Arbitration Award Appeal on Questions of Law and Arbitrator Misconduct
In Progen Engineering Pte Ltd v Chua Aik Kia (trading as Uni Sanitary Electrical Construction), the High Court of Singapore dismissed Progen Engineering's application to set aside an arbitration award in favor of Chua Aik Kia. Progen sought to set aside the award for misconduct of the arbitrator or, alternatively, for leave to appeal against the award on questions of law. The court, presided over by Belinda Ang Saw Ean J, found that Progen had not established its case under Section 17(2) or Section 28 of the Arbitration Act. The underlying dispute arose from a subcontract for air-conditioning and mechanical ventilation installation works. The court dismissed the application with costs.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Progen Engineering's application to set aside an arbitration award in favor of Chua Aik Kia was dismissed, with the court finding no misconduct.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Progen Engineering Pte Ltd | Applicant, Appellant | Corporation | Application dismissed with costs | Lost | |
| Chua Aik Kia (trading as Uni Sanitary Electrical Construction) | Respondent | Individual | Application dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Progen engaged USEC as a subcontractor for ACMV works.
- Disputes arose regarding late delivery of materials and inaccurate drawings.
- USEC terminated its services, citing Progen's failure to fulfill contractual obligations.
- Progen maintained the termination was wrongful and accused USEC of bad workmanship.
- The disputes were referred to arbitration.
- The arbitrator ruled substantially in favor of USEC, dismissing Progen's counterclaim.
- Progen applied to set aside the award or for leave to appeal.
5. Formal Citations
- Progen Engineering Pte Ltd v Chua Aik Kia (trading as Uni Sanitary Electrical Construction), OM 23/2005, [2006] SGHC 159
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| USEC's quotation No QU/301/96 for Pipe Works | |
| Progen Purchase Order No PEPL/022/96 for Pipe Works | |
| USEC's quotation No QU/303/96 for Paint Works | |
| Works commenced in October 1996 | |
| USEC's quotation No QU/327/97 for Pre-Insulation Works | |
| USEC served written notice to terminate its services | |
| Termination of USEC's services effective | |
| Date from which interest was calculated on a portion of the award | |
| Arbitration hearing began | |
| Arbitration hearing concluded | |
| Arbitration award dated | |
| First adjourned hearing | |
| Originating motion amended with leave of the court | |
| Progen appealed against the decision | |
| Decision date |
7. Legal Issues
- Misconduct of Arbitrator
- Outcome: The court found no misconduct on the part of the arbitrator.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to consider evidence
- Acting unfairly
- Showing bias
- Leave to Appeal on Questions of Law
- Outcome: The court denied leave to appeal, finding no substantial questions of law arising from the award.
- Category: Substantive
- Repudiatory Breach
- Outcome: The arbitrator found Progen in repudiatory breach of the Agreements.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside of arbitration award
- Leave to appeal against arbitration award
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Northern Elevator Manufacturing Sdn Bhd v United Engineers (Singapore) Pte Ltd (No 2) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR 494 | Singapore | Cited to delineate between a 'question of law' and an 'error of law' in the context of Section 28 of the Arbitration Act. |
| Norwest Holst Construction Ltd v Co-Operative Wholesale Society Ltd | Technology and Construction Court, England and Wales High Court | Yes | [1997] EWHC Technology 356 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a party must decide the precise nature of the complaint in advance and pursue the appropriate remedy. |
| Mabanaft GmbH v Consentino Shipping Co SA (The “Achillet”) | N/A | Yes | [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 191 | N/A | Cited for the concern that allegations of misconduct must not be allowed as a back door means of appeal on questions of fact or law. |
| Ahong Construction (S) Pte Ltd v United Boulevard Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR 749 | Singapore | Cited to define 'question of law' as a point of law in controversy which has to be resolved after opposing views and arguments have been considered. |
| Pioneer Shipping Ltd v BTP Tioxide Ltd (The Nema) | N/A | Yes | [1982] AC 724 | N/A | Cited to discuss the two types of questions of law that can arise from an arbitration award: construction of contract and whether facts lead to a legal conclusion. |
| Permasteelisa Pacific Holdings Ltd v Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2005] 2 SLR 270 | Singapore | Cited to summarize the two types of questions of law that can arise from an arbitration award as discussed in The Nema. |
| Kershaw Mechanical Services Ltd v Kendrick Construction Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2006] 2 All ER (Comm) 81 | N/A | Cited regarding the evidence the court can receive in an application for leave under s 28. |
| Ipswich Borough Council v Fisons plc | N/A | Yes | [1990] 1 Ch 709 | N/A | Cited to clarify that it is not the function of the court to hear the putative appeal before deciding whether or not to grant leave. |
| American Home Assurance Co v Hong Lam Marine Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR 682 | Singapore | Cited to clarify that a 'provisional assessment by the judge of the correctness or otherwise of the decision of the arbitrator' was all that is required for the determination of an application for leave. |
| Marrealeza Compania Naviera SA v Tradax Export SA (The “Nichos A”) | N/A | Yes | [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 52 | N/A | Cited to clarify that leave to appeal should not be given if the arbitrator might be right. |
| Moran v Lloyd’s | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1983] QB 542 | England and Wales | Cited for the proposition that an error of law or fact cannot by itself amount to misconduct. |
| K/S A/S Bill Biakh and K/S A/S Bill Biali v Hyundai Corporation | N/A | Yes | [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 187 | N/A | Cited for the principle that an error over admissibility of evidence could not by itself amount to misconduct by an arbitrator. |
| GKN Centrax Gears Ltd v Matbro Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 555 | N/A | Cited to state that admissibility of evidence, weight of the evidence and the inferences from it are essentially matters for the arbitrator. |
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 Award
- Misconduct
- Question of Law
- Repudiatory Breach
- ACMV Works
- Subcontractor
- Termination
- Progress Payments
- Variation Works
- Overtime
15.2 Keywords
- arbitration
- misconduct
- appeal
- construction
- contract
- singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Arbitration | 95 |
| Contract Law | 80 |
| Breach of Contract | 75 |
| Recourse against award | 60 |
| Damages | 50 |
| Building and Construction Contracts | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- Contract Law
- Construction Law