Denmark Skibstekniske v Ultrapolis: Enforcement of Danish Arbitration Award in Singapore
The Singapore High Court heard an application by Denmark Skibstekniske Konsulenter A/S I Likvidation (DSK) to enforce a corrected arbitration award issued by the Danish Arbitration Institute against Ultrapolis 3000 Investments Ltd. Ultrapolis resisted enforcement, arguing the absence of a valid arbitration agreement, improper composition of the arbitral authority, and that the tribunal was functus officio. The court granted DSK leave to enforce the award, finding that DSK had produced a certified copy of the Standard Conditions containing an arbitration clause and that Ultrapolis failed to prove grounds for setting aside the award under the International Arbitration Act.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Leave granted to Denmark Skibstekniske Konsulenter A/S I Likvidation to enforce the Corrected Award.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court enforces a Danish arbitration award in favor of Denmark Skibstekniske against Ultrapolis, addressing challenges to the arbitration agreement's validity.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Denmark Skibstekniske Konsulenter A/S I Likvidation (formerly known as Knud E Hansen A/S) | Applicant | Corporation | Leave granted to enforce the Corrected Award | Won | Herman Jeremiah, Loh Jen Wei, Wendy Goh |
| Ultrapolis 3000 Investments Ltd (formerly known as Ultrapolis 3000 Theme Park Investments Ltd) | Respondent | Corporation | Enforcement of Corrected Award granted | Lost | Sarbjit Singh, Cheryl Monteiro |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Herman Jeremiah | Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Loh Jen Wei | Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Wendy Goh | Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Sarbjit Singh | Lim & Lim |
| Cheryl Monteiro | Lim & Lim |
4. Facts
- DSK and Ultrapolis entered into a written agreement on 29 August 2005 for design services for a 90m mega yacht.
- The parties mutually rescinded the First Agreement in favor of a New Agreement for design services for a 100m mega yacht.
- DSK completed and delivered 95% of the contracted work but Ultrapolis refused to pay.
- DSK referred the matter to arbitration before the Danish Arbitration Institute on 24 November 2006.
- Ultrapolis challenged the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, arguing no agreement to arbitrate.
- The Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to hear the dispute.
- Ultrapolis did not challenge the Tribunal’s decision on jurisdiction in the Danish Court.
- The Tribunal passed its award on 11 February 2009 and a corrected award on 16 April 2009.
5. Formal Citations
- Denmark Skibstekniske Konsulenter A/S I Likvidation (formerly known as Knud E Hansen A/S) v Ultrapolis 3000 Investments Ltd (formerly known as Ultrapolis 3000 Theme Park Investments Ltd), Originating Summons No 807 of 2009, [2010] SGHC 108
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| First Agreement signed | |
| Standard Conditions emailed to Mr. Romani | |
| New Agreement concluded | |
| Matter referred to arbitration | |
| Main oral hearing of the substantive dispute before the Tribunal | |
| First Award passed | |
| Corrected Award passed | |
| OS 807 fixed for hearing on an inter partes basis | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Award
- Outcome: The court granted leave to enforce the foreign arbitral award.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Validity of arbitration agreement
- Composition of arbitral authority
- Tribunal functus officio
- Validity of Arbitration Agreement
- Outcome: The court found that a valid arbitration agreement existed.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Incorporation of standard terms
- Interpretation of contract clauses
- Functus Officio
- Outcome: The court held that the tribunal was not functus officio when it issued the Corrected Award.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Correction of award
- Clerical errors
8. Remedies Sought
- Enforcement of Arbitration Award
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Arbitration
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Maritime
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aloe Vera of America, Inc v Asianic Food (S) Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2006] 3 SLR(R) 174 | Singapore | Cited for the mechanistic approach to the first stage of enforcement of a foreign arbitral award and the formalistic examination of the arbitration agreement. |
| Dardana Ltd v Yukos Oil Co | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 326 | England | Cited for the principle that at the first stage of enforcement, all that is required is apparently valid documentation containing an arbitration clause. |
| Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Co v The Ministry of Religious Affairs, Government of Pakistan | Court of Appeal | No | [2009] EWCA Civ 755 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the form of proceedings under s 103(2) of the English Arbitration Act 1996 and whether a failure to seek curial relief in the supervisory court gives rise to an issue estoppel. |
| Paklito Investment Ltd v Klockner East Asia Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1993] HKLR 39 | Hong Kong | Cited for the principle that failure to seek annulment in the curial court does not affect the right to defend enforcement proceedings. |
| Proctor v Schellenberg | Court of Appeal of Manitoba | Yes | [2003] 2 WWR 621 | Canada | Cited for the principle that a written agreement does not require a signature. |
| Hebei Import & Export Corp v Polytek Engineering Co Ltd | High Court | No | [1999] 2 HKC 205 | Hong Kong | Cited regarding the approach towards decisions of foreign arbitral tribunals in Convention countries. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 69A r 6 |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 69A r 6(a) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed) s 29 | Singapore |
| International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed) s 30 | Singapore |
| International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed) s 31 | Singapore |
| International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed) s 31 | Singapore |
| International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed) s 27 | Singapore |
| Danish Arbitration Act 2005 (Act No. 553 of 24 June 2005 on Arbitration) s 33 | Denmark |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Arbitration Agreement
- Standard Conditions
- Corrected Award
- Functus Officio
- Enforcement
- International Arbitration Act
- Danish Arbitration Institute
15.2 Keywords
- arbitration
- enforcement
- foreign award
- Singapore
- Denmark
- contract
- agreement
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- Enforcement of Foreign Awards
- Contract Law
17. Areas of Law
- Arbitration Law
- Contract Law
- International Arbitration