Swiss Singapore v Exim Rajathi: Setting Aside Arbitration Award for Alleged Fraud and Public Policy Violation
In Swiss Singapore Overseas Enterprises Pte Ltd v Exim Rajathi India Pvt Ltd, the Singapore High Court addressed an application by Swiss Singapore to set aside an arbitration award in favor of Exim Rajathi. Swiss Singapore alleged that Exim Rajathi procured the award through fraud and in a manner contrary to public policy, specifically by falsifying testimony and suppressing documents related to the mitigation of damages in a breach of contract dispute. Judith Prakash J dismissed the application, finding that the alleged fraudulent activities did not substantially impact the arbitration award.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed with costs to the defendant.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment reserved
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court dismisses application to set aside arbitration award, finding no fraud or public policy violation in contract dispute.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Swiss Singapore Overseas Enterprises Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Exim Rajathi India Pvt Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Application Dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Judith Prakash | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract in March 2005 for the sale of 40,000mt of iron ore fines.
- The plaintiff allegedly failed to take delivery of the cargo, leading to a dispute.
- The defendant claimed it mitigated damages by selling the cargo to Terapanth and Susmi at lower prices.
- The arbitrator found the plaintiff liable for US$1,201,609.20 in damages.
- The plaintiff alleged the defendant falsified testimony and suppressed documents regarding the sale to Terapanth.
- The plaintiff claimed the defendant did not have the cargo ready for loading by the contractually stipulated date.
- The defendant stated that it had returned rupees 7.5m to Terapanth in November 2005.
5. Formal Citations
- Swiss Singapore Overseas Enterprises Pte Ltd v Exim Rajathi India Pvt Ltd, OS 1620/2008, [2009] SGHC 231
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Contract signed for the plaintiff to purchase iron ore fines from the defendant. | |
| Defendant issued a Notice of Arbitration. | |
| Arbitration hearing took place. | |
| Arbitrator rendered the Award. | |
| Plaintiff filed originating summons. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Fraud
- Outcome: The court found that the alleged fraudulent activities did not substantially impact the arbitration award.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Falsified testimony
- Suppression of documents
- Public Policy
- Outcome: The court found no violation of public policy.
- Category: Substantive
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court upheld the arbitrator's finding that the plaintiff breached the contract.
- Category: Substantive
- Assessment of Damages
- Outcome: The court upheld the arbitrator's assessment of damages.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside Arbitration Award
- Declaration that the Award was procured by fraud and/or contrary to public policy
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SA | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR 597 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that public policy under the International Arbitration Act encompasses a narrow scope and includes instances of corruption, bribery, or fraud. |
| Elektrim SA v Vivendi Universal SA | English Courts | Yes | [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 693 | England | Discussed the issue of suppression of documents amounting to obtaining an arbitration award by fraud. |
| Thyssen Canada Limited v Marianan Maritime SA | English Courts | Yes | [2005] 1 Lloyds Rep 640 | England | Cited regarding the need to establish that the defendant acted in such a way as to obtain the award by fraud or to procure it in a way which was reprehensible or involved unconscionable conduct. |
| Profilati Italia SrL v. PaineWebber Inc | English Courts | Yes | [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Report 715 | England | Discussed the principle that deliberately withholding an important document may be considered fraudulent or akin to fraud. |
| Dongwoo Mann+Hummel v. Mann+Hummel Gmbh | High Court | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR 871 | Singapore | Discussed and approved the principles in Elektrim and Profilati regarding fraud and non-disclosure of documents in arbitration. |
| DDT Trucks of North America Ltd v DDT Holdings Ltd | English Courts | Yes | [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Law Reports 213 | England | Cited the judgment of Waller LJ in Westacre v Jugoimport regarding the evidence required to set aside a judgment on the ground that it was obtained by fraud. |
| Westacre v Jugoimport | English Courts | Yes | 2000 QB 288 | England | Cited regarding the evidence required to set aside a judgment on the ground that it was obtained by fraud. |
| Golden Strait Corporation v. Nippon Yusen Kubishka Kaisa | House of Lords | No | [2007] 2 WLR 691 | England | Cited for the proposition that damages should be assessed with reference to subsequent events so as to prevent an innocent party from over claiming his entitlement to damages, but ultimately distinguished. |
| Lazenby Garages Ltd v Wright | Court of Appeal | No | [1976] 1 WLR 459 | England | Cited for the proposition that damages should be assessed with reference to subsequent events so as to prevent an innocent party from over claiming his entitlement to damages, but ultimately distinguished. |
| Harlow & Jones Ltd v Panex (International) Ltd | English Courts | Yes | [1967] 2 LLR 509 | England | Cited regarding the assessment of damages when there is no available market. |
| Alton House Garages v Marleywood Marine | English Courts | Yes | [1983] QB | England | Cited regarding the assessment of damages when there is no available market for specially fitted boats. |
| R. Pagnan & Fratelli v Corbisa Industrial Agropacuaria Limitada | English Courts | No | [1970] WLR 1306 | England | Cited regarding the rare situation where the conduct of the plaintiff buyer after the defendant seller had breached the contract of sale was reprehensible. |
| Kaines (UK) Ltd v Osterreichsche Warrenhandelsgesellschaft | English Courts | Yes | [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep I | England | Cited regarding the period allowed to enable the necessary arrangements for the substitute sale or purchase to be made. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A) | Singapore |
| Sale of Goods Act (Cap 393 Rev Ed 1999) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Arbitration Award
- Fraud
- Public Policy
- International Arbitration Act
- Model Law
- Sale of Goods Act
- Breach of Contract
- Mitigation of Damages
- Iron Ore Fines
- FOB
- SIAC
15.2 Keywords
- arbitration
- fraud
- contract
- singapore
- international arbitration
- sale of goods
- iron ore
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- Contract Law
- International Trade