Ting Kang Chung John v Teo Hee Lai: Arbitration Award Set Aside Due to Arbitrator's Delay

In Ting Kang Chung John v Teo Hee Lai Building Constructions Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore addressed consolidated originating summonses concerning a building and construction dispute that escalated into a dispute involving the appointed arbitrator. The court declined to extend the time for the arbitrator to issue the arbitration award, deeming the award void due to the arbitrator's failure to meet the stipulated time limit. The court also addressed the conduct of the parties and the competence of the arbitrator, ultimately allowing the parties to recommence their dispute resolution through arbitration.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application to extend time to issue arbitration award declined; arbitration award deemed void.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Arbitration award set aside due to arbitrator's delay. The court declined to extend the time for the award, deeming it void.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Anwar SirajDefendantIndividualClaim unresolvedNeutral
Ting Kang Chung JohnPlaintiffIndividualApplication DismissedLost
Teo Hee Lai Building Constructions Pte LtdDefendantCorporationClaim unresolvedNeutral
Norma Khoo Cheng NeoDefendantIndividualClaim unresolvedNeutral

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Quentin LohJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Ng YuenMalkin & Maxwell LLP
Thulasidas s/o Rengasamy SuppramaniamM/s Ling Das & Partners

4. Facts

  1. Siraj and Norma contracted with Teo Hee Lai Building Construction for construction work.
  2. Disputes arose between the parties regarding defective workmanship, delays, and payments.
  3. The contract contained an arbitration clause.
  4. The Singapore Institute of Architects (SIA) appointed John Ting Kang Chung as the arbitrator.
  5. The arbitrator failed to issue the arbitration award within the time limit specified by the SIA Rules.
  6. The arbitrator applied for an extension of time to issue the award after the time limit had expired.
  7. The Sirajs challenged the arbitrator's handling of the arbitration and his fees.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Ting Kang Chung John v Teo Hee Lai Building Constructions Pte Ltd and others, Originating Summons No 1807 of 2006, [2010] SGHC 20

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Letter of Award was dated.
Contract was dated.
Original completion date.
Property was handed back to Siraj and Norma.
Contractor sent letters to the project architect listing disputes to be submitted to arbitration.
Contractor sent letters to the project architect listing disputes to be submitted to arbitration.
Contractor gave notice to the Sirajs referring their dispute to arbitration.
Contractor’s lawyer wrote regarding the arbitration.
Sirajs made a call on the performance bond.
Messrs Khattar Wong & Partners replied that they acted for the Sirajs.
LDP wrote to the SIA to appoint an arbitrator.
President, SIA nominated the Arbitrator.
The Arbitrator accepted the nomination.
SIA President confirmed the appointment to LDP.
The Contractor paid its share of $1,000.
The Contractor paid the Sirajs share of $1,000 to the Arbitrator.
First preliminary Meeting, the Arbitrator issued directions on the filing of pleadings.
A site inspection took place.
Certificate of Statutory Completion was issued by the Building and Construction Authority.
All the pleadings had been filed.
Siraj’s solicitor wrote to the Arbitrator for the hearing to be conducted as soon as possible.
Reminder sent to Arbitrator.
Reminder sent to Arbitrator.
Meeting fixed by the Arbitrator.
The Arbitrator requested each party to pay $8,250 to him.
Security for costs applications were heard by the Arbitrator.
Sirajs received payment of $120,000 on the bond.
The Arbitrator faxed a letter to the parties.
Injunction discharged by the Court of Appeal.
Siraj wrote to the Arbitrator enquiring about the outcome of the applications.
The Arbitrator sent another letter.
Sirajs received payment of $120,000 on the bond.
The Arbitrator replied to a letter from Siraj.
The Arbitrator ruled on the application for security for cost and damages.
Siraj commenced OM No 26 of 2002 to remove the Arbitrator.
Siraj listed 22 interlocutory applications he wished to make.
OM No 26 of 2002 was dismissed by Tay J.
Hearing for 22 interlocutory applications.
The Arbitrator dismissed all 22 applications.
The Arbitrator wrote to the parties stating that a considerable amount of time had been spent by him in the arbitration.
The Arbitrator replied enclosing a 12-page itemised time sheet.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the Sirajs’ appeal against Tay J’s decision in OM 26 of 2002.
The Arbitrator wrote to the parties directing that the parties appear before him on 10 September 2003 to take hearing dates.
The Arbitrator sent another reminder to the parties to deposit $25,000 each to account of fees and expenses.
The Contractor forwarded his $25,000 to the Arbitrator.
Meeting to take dates for the hearing was contentious.
The Arbitrator noted payment by the Contractor and directed the Sirajs to pay their $25,000.
The Arbitrator wrote to the parties, noting that the parties were to revert to him on the proposed dates.
Mr Raman sent a letter stating that he was still awaiting his client, Norma’s, instructions.
Mr Siraj sent a letter on various other points and issues but did not confirm his availability for the ‘blocked off’ dates.
The Arbitrator ruled that having given the parties ample opportunity to confirm their availability, he proceeded to schedule hearing dates.
Mr Das wrote in for a date to hear his client’s application based on Article 13.5 of the Rules.
The Arbitrator fixed the 19 November 2003, 4.00 pm for the Contractor’s application.
The Arbitrator gave Siraj and Mr Raman a final opportunity to make submissions on Mr Das’s application.
The Arbitrator proceeded to issue his decision in a fax.
First day of the hearing.
Siraj, Norma and Mr Raman again failed to turn up.
The Arbitrator wrote to the parties asking the Contractor to submit final written submissions if it wished to within 2 weeks.
The Contractor sent in his written submissions.
Mr Raman wrote to the Arbitrator.
Mr Raman wrote to the Arbitrator and LDP.
Lai J only awarded interest for the delay in making payment.
The Arbitrator wrote to the parties stating that his Award was published and ready for collection.
Siraj wrote to the Arbitrator referring to the “...lapsed arbitration...”
The Arbitrator wrote to the parties proposing a meeting on 26 June 2006 to extend time limit by consent.
Mr Das wrote in for the Contractor agreeing to the extension of time.
The Court of Appeal ordered that OS No 1807 of 2006 and OS No 1231 of 2008 be consolidated.
The Court of Appeal reduced the funds frozen to $100,000.
Consolidated originating summonses proceeded for hearing.
Consolidated originating summonses proceeded for hearing.
Consolidated originating summonses proceeded for hearing.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Extension of Time for Arbitration Award
    • Outcome: The court declined to extend the time for the arbitrator to issue the award.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to meet time limit
      • Delay in application for extension
  2. Arbitrator's Competence and Conduct
    • Outcome: The court found the arbitrator lacked the necessary training, competence, or experience to handle the arbitration.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Lack of experience
      • Improper handling of proceedings
      • Bias

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Setting aside of Arbitration Award
  2. Damages
  3. Costs

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Arbitration
  • Construction Law
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Hong Huat Development Co (Pte) Ltd v Hiap Hong & Co Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2000] 2 SLR 609SingaporeCited for the proposition that under the SIA Form contract, once an award was published, delay was not a good reason to set aside an award even it was published 10 years late.
Petro-Canada v Alberta Gas Ethylene CoN/AYes(1991) 121 AR 199N/ACited with approval a passage in the 1st Edition of Redfern & Hunter’s Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration.
Ian MacDonald Library Services Ltd v PZ Resort Systems IncN/AYes(1987) 14 BCLR (2d) 273N/ACited as a case where the court set aside an arbitration award made several months after the expiry of the time for making it.
Parkes v SmithN/AYes(1850) 15 QB 297N/ACited for the proposition that a court could extend the time limit for an award to be published a second time beyond the specified date in the arbitration agreement and at a time when the award was not yet published.
Oakland Metal Co Ltd v D Benaim & Co LtdN/AYes[1953] 2 QB 261N/ACited as a case where the court extended time to make the award by one month thereby validating the award which was made about a fortnight beyond the time limited to do so.
Techno Ltd v Allied Dunbar Assurance Plc & OrsN/AYes[1993] 22 EG 109N/ACited as a case where the Court agreed with the tenant that the arbitrator had misconducted himself in discarding the assumption agreed upon by the parties and remitted the matter back to the arbitrator for reconsideration and extended the time for the arbitrator to do so.
Pioneer Shipping Ltd v BTP Tioxide, “The Nema”N/AYes[1982] AC 724N/ACited as a case that has been adopted by our Court of Appeal in Hong Huat Development and in many other cases.
Antaios Compania Naviera SA v Salen Rederierna ARBITRATOR, “The Antaios”N/AYes[1985] AC 191N/ACited as a case that has been adopted by our Court of Appeal in Hong Huat Development and in many other cases.
Fox v PG WellfairN/AYes[1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 514N/ACited as a building contract claim with alleged defects where the respondents allowed the hearing to go undefended.
Hong Huat Development Co (Pte) Ltd v Hiap Hong & Co Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2003] SGHC 64SingaporeCited as a case where Tay, J meant when he said in his judgement: “The fact that an arbitrator seems to be constantly ruling in favour of one party is equally consistent with the merits being on that party’s side.”
Minermet SpA Milan v Luckyfield Shipping Corpn SAN/AYes[2004] Lloyds Rep 348N/ACited for illustrations of how the English Courts have applied section 50 of their 1996 Act.
Pirtek (UK) Ltd v Deanswood LtdN/AYes[2005] EWHC 2301N/ACited for illustrations of how the English Courts have applied section 50 of their 1996 Act.
VV v VWN/AYes[2008] 2 SLR 929N/ACited as a case in relation to international arbitrations.
Siraj v Teo Hee Lai Building Construction Pte LtdDistrict CourtYes[2005] SGDC 3SingaporeSiraj claimed damages due to the 408-day delay in making payment under the performance bond.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Arbitration Rules of the S.I.A.

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore
Arbitration Act (Cap 10)Singapore
Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Arbitration Award
  • Extension of Time
  • Arbitrator's Fees
  • SIA Rules
  • Building Contract
  • Party Autonomy
  • Substantial Injustice

15.2 Keywords

  • arbitration
  • construction
  • delay
  • award
  • SIA
  • extension of time

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Arbitration95
Construction Law90
Breach of Contract60
Contract Law50
Extension of Time40
Arbitrator's Fees35
Jurisdiction30

16. Subjects

  • Arbitration
  • Construction Dispute
  • Contract Law
  • Civil Procedure