Ng Chin Siau v How Kim Chuan: Appeal Against Arbitration Award on Partnership Valuation
In Ng Chin Siau and Others v How Kim Chuan, the High Court of Singapore heard an application by How Kim Chuan for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the High Court's decision to allow the plaintiffs' appeal against an arbitrator's award. The dispute concerned the valuation of Mr. How's share in a dental partnership following his retirement. The High Court dismissed Mr. How's application, finding no question of law of general importance or special reason to warrant an appeal.
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
Appeal concerning the valuation of a retiring partner's share in a dental clinic. The court addressed the arbitrator's application of a valuation clause.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ng Chin Siau | Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | N Sreenivasan, Collin Choo |
| Yap Kin Wai | Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | N Sreenivasan, Collin Choo |
| Chong Kai Chuan | Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | N Sreenivasan, Collin Choo |
| Chong Ling Sharon | Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | N Sreenivasan, Collin Choo |
| Ng Jet Wei | Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | N Sreenivasan, Collin Choo |
| Wong Dai Chong | Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | N Sreenivasan, Collin Choo |
| Loh Meow Song | Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | N Sreenivasan, Collin Choo |
| Kuan Chee Keong | Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | N Sreenivasan, Collin Choo |
| Oh Chin Hong | Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | N Sreenivasan, Collin Choo |
| Ng Cheng Huat | Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | N Sreenivasan, Collin Choo |
| Tan Soo Kiat | Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | N Sreenivasan, Collin Choo |
| Francis Lee | Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | N Sreenivasan, Collin Choo |
| Ang Hwee Quan Susan | Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | N Sreenivasan, Collin Choo |
| Seah Yang Howe | Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | N Sreenivasan, Collin Choo |
| Leong Hon Chiew | Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | N Sreenivasan, Collin Choo |
| How Kim Chuan | Defendant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost | Lok Vi Ming, Kirindeep Singh, Mark Seah |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Judith Prakash | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| N Sreenivasan | Straits Law Practice LLC |
| Collin Choo | Straits Law Practice LLC |
| Lok Vi Ming | Rodyk & Davidson |
| Kirindeep Singh | Rodyk & Davidson |
| Mark Seah | Rodyk & Davidson |
4. Facts
- Mr. How retired from dental partnerships on 11 May 2002.
- Disputes arose regarding the amount payable to Mr. How upon his retirement.
- The parties agreed to refer the disputes to arbitration.
- Mr. How claimed a larger amount was due to him than what was paid.
- The arbitrator issued a written award on 15 March 2006.
- The partners filed an originating summons seeking leave to appeal the award.
- The High Court allowed the partners' appeal in part.
5. Formal Citations
- Ng Chin Siau and Others v How Kim Chuan, OS 749/2006, SUM 4825/2006, [2007] SGHC 31
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| How Kim Chuan issued a notice of retirement from the partnerships. | |
| How Kim Chuan issued a notice of arbitration. | |
| Lim Joo Toon appointed as the sole arbitrator. | |
| Arbitration was heard. | |
| Arbitrator issued written award. | |
| Partners filed originating summons seeking leave to appeal. | |
| High Court heard application for leave to appeal. | |
| High Court delivered decision allowing the plaintiffs’ appeal. | |
| How Kim Chuan filed summons seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Recourse against arbitration award
- Outcome: The court held that there was no question of law of general importance or special reason to warrant an appeal.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Applicability of valuation method in partnership agreement
- Admissibility and reliance on valuation report
- Determination of share value based on expert reports
- Leave to appeal against High Court decision
- Outcome: The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that the proposed questions of law did not meet the requirements of general importance or special reason.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Question of law of general importance
- Existence of special reasons
8. Remedies Sought
- Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anthony s/o Savarimiuthu v Soh Chuan Tin | High Court | Yes | [1989] SLR 607 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of a “question of law… of general importance”. |
| Northern Elevator Manufacturing Sdn Bhd v United Engineers (Singapore) Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR 494 | Singapore | Cited for the observation that a question of law is a finding of law that the parties dispute and that requires the guidance of the court to resolve. |
| Abdul Rahman bin Shariff v Abdul Salim bin Syed | High Court | Yes | [1999] 4 SLR 716 | Singapore | Cited for the conditions to be satisfied under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act before an application for leave can succeed. |
| Multi-Pak Singapore Pte Ltd v Intraco Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR 793 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that a court was not allowed to make a finding or give a decision based on facts that have not been pleaded. |
| Yap Chwee Kim v American Home Assurance Co | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR 421 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that a court was not allowed to make a finding or give a decision based on facts that have not been pleaded. |
| Evergreat Construction Co Pte Ltd v Presscrete Engineering Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR 634 | Singapore | Cited for the legal dictum that it is inappropriate for a court to substitute its own view on the merits when the parties have already agreed to rely on the expertise of an expert for a final and irrevocable determination. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap. 322, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Arbitration
- Arbitration award
- Partnership
- Valuation
- Goodwill
- Expert report
- Leave to appeal
- Question of law
- General importance
- Special reason
15.2 Keywords
- arbitration
- partnership
- valuation
- appeal
- Singapore
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- Partnerships
- Valuation of Assets
- Civil Procedure
17. Areas of Law
- Arbitration Law
- Partnership Law
- Commercial Law