Drydocks World v Jurong Port: Stay of Action & Arbitration Act
Drydocks World-Singapore Pte Ltd (formerly known as Pan-United Shipyard Pte Ltd) applied for a stay of Suit No 757 of 2009 filed by Jurong Port Pte Ltd, seeking to resolve the dispute through arbitration. The High Court of Singapore, presided over by Nathaniel Khng AR, granted an unconditional stay of the action based on Section 6 of the Arbitration Act, favoring the resolution of the dispute through arbitration, without imposing a condition that Drydocks waive its right to argue any defence based on the Limitation Act.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Action stayed unconditionally based on Section 6 of the Arbitration Act.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Drydocks World sought a stay of Jurong Port's action under the Arbitration Act. The court granted an unconditional stay, favoring arbitration.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Drydocks World-Singapore Pte Ltd (formerly known as Pan-United Shipyard Pte Ltd) | Defendant, Applicant | Corporation | Stay of Action Granted | Won | |
| Jurong Port Pte Ltd | Plaintiff, Respondent | Corporation | Stay of Action Granted | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Nathaniel Khng | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Jurong Port and Drydocks entered into three contracts in 2000, 2001, and 2003 for the design, supply, installation, and commissioning of nine quay cranes.
- The contracts contained clauses for dispute resolution, including reference to a Superintending Officer and arbitration.
- Jurong Port discovered defects in the cranes around 2007 and engaged third-party contractors to carry out repair work.
- Jurong Port commenced an action on 4 September 2009 to avoid falling foul of any applicable limitation periods.
- Jurong Port referred the matter to the Superintending Officers in December 2009.
- Drydocks issued notices of arbitration in March and April 2010.
- Jurong Port offered to discontinue the action if Drydocks agreed to waive any limitation defenses.
5. Formal Citations
- Drydocks World-Singapore Pte Ltd (formerly known as Pan-United Shipyard Pte Ltd) v Jurong Port Pte Ltd, Suit No 757 of 2009 (Summons No 1811 of 2010), [2010] SGHC 185
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Jurong Port and Drydocks entered into the 2000 Contract. | |
| Jurong Port and Drydocks entered into the 2001 Contract. | |
| Jurong Port and Drydocks entered into the 2003 Contract. | |
| Cranes were delivered and put into operation by Jurong Port. | |
| Jurong Port discovered certain defects in the Cranes. | |
| Jurong Port engaged third-party contractors to carry out repair work on the Cranes. | |
| Repairs on the Cranes were completed. | |
| Jurong Port commenced the Action. | |
| Jurong Port referred the matter to the Superintending Officers under the Contracts for their decision. | |
| Ms Mao advised the parties to jointly appoint an independent assessor. | |
| Mr Tan rendered his decision on the issues arising out of the 2003 Contract. | |
| Mr Tan rendered his decision on the issues arising out of the 2001 Contract. | |
| The writ was served on Drydocks. | |
| Drydocks issued a notice of arbitration with respect to Mr Tan’s decisions. | |
| Drydocks filed its memorandum of appearance. | |
| Jurong Port offered to discontinue the Action, provided that Drydocks gave its agreement to the Condition. | |
| Jurong Port offered to discontinue the Action, provided that Drydocks gave its agreement to the Modified Condition. | |
| Drydocks wrote to Ms Mao to inform her that the parties could not reach an agreement vis-a-vis the appointment of an independent assessor. | |
| Drydocks wrote to Ms Mao to ask her to render a decision within three days. | |
| Ms Mao stated that the “opinion and response as expressed in [the] letter dated 5 [January] 2010 to Jurong Port on the same issue remain”. | |
| Drydocks received a letter dated 22 April 2010 from Ms Mao. | |
| Drydocks issued a notice of arbitration in regard to the issues arising out of the 2000 Contract. | |
| The statement of claim was filed. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Stay of Court Proceedings
- Outcome: The court granted an unconditional stay of the action based on Section 6 of the Arbitration Act.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Application of Section 6 of the Arbitration Act
- Discretion of the court to grant a stay
- Imposition of terms and conditions on a stay
- Limitation Periods
- Outcome: The court considered the potential impact of limitation periods on Jurong Port's claims but ultimately did not impose a condition requiring Drydocks to waive its right to raise a limitation defense.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Applicability of the Limitation Act
- Effect of arbitration proceedings on limitation periods
- Waiver of limitation defenses
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Breach of Warranty
- Negligence
- Misrepresentation
10. Practice Areas
- Arbitration
- Commercial Litigation
- Construction Law
11. Industries
- Construction
- Shipping
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Xanadu | High Court | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 360 | Singapore | Cited as a leading case on the imposition of terms and conditions when granting a stay of court proceedings in favor of arbitration, particularly regarding the waiver of limitation defenses. |
| The Duden | High Court | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 984 | Singapore | Cited as a leading case on the imposition of terms and conditions when granting a stay of court proceedings in favor of arbitration, particularly regarding the waiver of limitation defenses. |
| The Escherscheim | Not Available | Yes | [1976] 1 WLR 339 | England and Wales | Cited by Jurong Port for the principle that a court may refuse a stay if the defendant could render arbitration ineffective by raising a limitation defense. |
| JDC Corp and another v Lightweight Concrete Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR(R) 96 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the party opposing a stay in favor of arbitration bears the burden of showing sufficient reason why the matter should not be referred to arbitration. |
| Tjong Very Sumito and others v Antig Investments Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 732 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court has a somewhat wider role and broader judicial latitude in domestic arbitration but this is to be exercised in a guarded manner. |
| NCC International AB v Alliance Concrete Singapore Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 565 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Arbitration Act and the International Arbitration Act ought to be read consistently. |
| Soh Beng Tee & Co Pte Ltd v Fairmount Development Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 86 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that Parliament intended that the Arbitration Act should largely mirror the International Arbitration Act and international practices reflected in the Model Law. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Arbitration Agreement
- Stay of Proceedings
- Limitation Period
- Superintending Officer
- Condition
- Modified Condition
- Cranes
- Defects
- Arbitration Act
- Inherent Jurisdiction
15.2 Keywords
- Arbitration
- Stay of Proceedings
- Limitation
- Construction
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Arbitration | 90 |
| Limitation | 80 |
| Contract Law | 70 |
| Contracts | 50 |
| Extension of Time | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- Construction Dispute
- Civil Procedure