Ng Chin Siau v How Kim Chuan: Leave to Appeal Arbitration Award Refused
In Ng Chin Siau and Others v How Kim Chuan, the Singapore Court of Appeal dismissed an application for leave to appeal a High Court decision that had varied a domestic arbitration award. The underlying dispute involved a partnership in dental practices and a dental laboratory. The Court of Appeal clarified the procedural requirements for appeals on questions of law related to domestic arbitration awards under Section 49 of the Arbitration Act, emphasizing the limited circumstances in which such appeals can be pursued further to the Court of Appeal.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal dismissed an application for leave to appeal a High Court decision regarding an arbitration award, clarifying the limited circumstances for appeals under the Arbitration Act.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ng Chin Siau | Respondent | Individual | Application Won | Won | |
| Yap Kin Wai | Respondent | Individual | Application Won | Won | |
| Chong Kai Chuan | Respondent | Individual | Application Won | Won | |
| Chong Ling Sharon | Respondent | Individual | Application Won | Won | |
| Ng Jet Wei | Respondent | Individual | Application Won | Won | |
| Wong Dai Chong | Respondent | Individual | Application Won | Won | |
| Loh Meow Song | Respondent | Individual | Application Won | Won | |
| Kuan Chee Keong | Respondent | Individual | Application Won | Won | |
| Oh Chin Hong | Respondent | Individual | Application Won | Won | |
| Ng Cheng Huat | Respondent | Individual | Application Won | Won | |
| Tan Soon Kiat | Respondent | Individual | Application Won | Won | |
| Francis Lee | Respondent | Individual | Application Won | Won | |
| Ang Hwee Quan Susan | Respondent | Individual | Application Won | Won | |
| Seah Yang Howe | Respondent | Individual | Application Won | Won | |
| Leong Hon Chiew | Respondent | Individual | Application Won | Won | |
| How Kim Chuan | Applicant, Defendant | Individual | Application Lost | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| V K Rajah | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Dr. How and the respondents were partners in dental practices and a dental laboratory.
- A dispute arose, leading Dr. How to issue a notice of retirement.
- The parties agreed to refer their disputes to an arbitrator.
- The arbitrator issued a written award on March 15, 2006.
- The plaintiffs filed an originating summons seeking leave to appeal on two questions of law.
- The judge granted leave to appeal on only one question.
- The judge allowed the appeal and varied the award, remitting the question of costs to the arbitrator.
5. Formal Citations
- Ng Chin Siau and Others v How Kim Chuan, OS 749/2006, SUM 1083/2007, [2007] SGCA 46
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Arbitrator issued written award | |
| Plaintiffs filed originating summons seeking leave to appeal | |
| Defendant filed Summons No 4825 seeking leave to appeal | |
| Summons heard by judge | |
| Judge concluded no question of law of general importance | |
| Plaintiffs' solicitors wrote to defendant's solicitors regarding appeal sections | |
| Defendant's solicitors requested summons be fixed before Court of Appeal | |
| Application for leave to appeal dismissed |
7. Legal Issues
- Leave to Appeal Arbitration Award
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the application for leave to appeal.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Interpretation of Section 49 of the Arbitration Act
- Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal
8. Remedies Sought
- Leave to Appeal
- Variation of Arbitration Award
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Partnership Agreement
10. Practice Areas
- Arbitration
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Healthcare
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ng Chin Siau v How Kim Chuan | High Court | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR 789 | Singapore | Cited for the High Court's conclusion that there was no question of law of general importance to be brought before the Court of Appeal. |
| Henry Boot Construction (UK) Ltd v Malmaison Hotel (Manchester) Ltd | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] QB 388 | England | Relied upon for the principle that the Court of Appeal cannot entertain an appeal unless the High Court gives leave, and cannot review the High Court’s refusal to give leave. |
| Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v Impregilo SpA | House of Lords | Yes | [2006] 1 AC 221 | England | Cited to expound on the 'ethos' of the English Arbitration Act, emphasizing the limited role of the courts in relation to arbitration proceedings. |
| The Derby | N/A | Yes | [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 325 | N/A | Cited to summarize the policy of the legislation to discourage appeals from arbitrators on issues of law and only to allow them to proceed beyond the court of first instance in exceptional circumstances. |
| The Antaios | N/A | Yes | [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 284 | N/A | Cited to state that the intention of the Act is that primarily there should be one appeal, and one appeal only, and that is to the High Court. |
| Gelberg v Miller | House of Lords | Yes | [1961] 1 WLR 459 | England | Cited for the principle that a statute does not create new jurisdictions or enlarge existing ones, and express language is required if an Act is to be interpreted as having this effect. |
| Lane v Esdaile | House of Lords | Yes | [1891] AC 210 | England | Cited for the principle that an appeal is not to be presumed but must be given, and to emphasize the importance of the discretion of the lower court in granting leave to appeal. |
| Kay v Briggs | N/A | Yes | (1889) 22 QBD 343 | N/A | Cited for the principle that if the Court of Appeal could overrule the discretion given to Divisional Courts, the practical effect would be to allow an appeal in every case. |
| Hong Huat Development Co (Pte) Ltd v Hiap Hong & Co Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR 609 | Singapore | Cited to state that under the repealed Arbitration Act, leave of Court was not required for an appeal to the Court of Appeal against the High Court’s decision on an application for leave to appeal from an arbitration award. |
| Northern Elevator Manufacturing Sdn Bhd v United Engineers (Singapore) Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] 4 SLR 492 | Singapore | Cited to observe that Section 49(7) of the current Arbitration Act is a new provision that specifies that the leave of the court shall be required for any appeal from a decision of the court under this section to grant or refuse leave to appeal. |
| North Range Shipping Ltd v Seatrans Shipping Corpn | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2002] 1 WLR 2397 | England | Discussed in relation to the Court of Appeal's residual jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a refusal to permit an appeal in circumstances in which the judge’s decision had allegedly been unfair. |
| Aden Refinery Co Ltd v Ugland Management Co Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1987] QB 650 | England | Cited for the principle that the discretion conferred upon the judge under s 69(6) of the English Act was for him alone, but reserving the right to intervene in cases where the judge had failed to act judicially. |
| BLCT Ltd v J Sainsbury plc | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 2 P & CR 3 | England | Cited for the exercise of the exceptional jurisdiction by the Court of Appeal, relying on North Range and accepting that it had a residual jurisdiction to grant relief in a case of unfairness. |
| CGU International Insurance Plc v AstraZeneca Insurance Co Ltd | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 142 | England | Cited to confirm the correctness of the decision in North Range, regarding the existence of a residual jurisdiction for reviewing on appeal the misconduct or unfairness of a first instance judge’s determination concerning the grant or refusal of leave to appeal. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 56 r 3(1) |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 69 r 8 |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 1 r 4(2) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 2002 Rev Ed) s 49 | Singapore |
| Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 2002 Rev Ed) s 52 | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed) s 34(2) | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) s 9A | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Arbitration Award
- Leave to Appeal
- Section 49 Arbitration Act
- Jurisdiction
- Court of Appeal
- High Court
- Domestic Arbitration
- Residual Jurisdiction
- Procedural Unfairness
15.2 Keywords
- Arbitration
- Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Singapore
- Court of Appeal
- Arbitration Act
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Arbitration | 90 |
| Recourse against award | 70 |
| Civil Procedure | 40 |
| Contract Law | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals