ALC v ALF: Revocation of Subpoena in Arbitration Proceedings
In ALC v ALF, the High Court of Singapore heard an application by ALC, a statutory body, to revoke a subpoena issued against its employee, Mr. [XY], at the request of ALF, a construction company, in ongoing arbitration proceedings. The dispute arose from a contract between the parties. The court, presided over by Assistant Registrar Crystal Tan Huiling, allowed ALC's application, emphasizing the importance of minimal judicial interference in arbitration and adherence to agreed-upon procedural rules.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Plaintiff's application allowed.
1.3 Case Type
Arbitration
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application to revoke a subpoena issued against ALC's employee in support of arbitration proceedings. The court allowed the application, emphasizing minimal court interference.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALC | Plaintiff | Statutory Board | Application allowed | Won | Andrew Yeo Khirn Hin, Loong Tse Chuan |
| ALF | Defendant | Corporation | Application dismissed | Lost | Mohan Pillay, Daniel Tay |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Crystal Tan Huiling | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Andrew Yeo Khirn Hin | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Loong Tse Chuan | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Mohan Pillay | MPillay |
| Daniel Tay | MPillay |
4. Facts
- ALC and ALF entered into a contract on October 1, 2004, for a construction project.
- Disputes arose under the contract, leading to arbitration proceedings commenced by ALF on March 19, 2009.
- The arbitration agreement stipulated resolution of disputes by an arbitrator in accordance with SIAC rules.
- ALF requested the court to issue a subpoena against ALC's employee, Mr. [XY], to testify on the adequacy of ALC's disclosure.
- The arbitrator had previously rejected ALF's request for sworn testimony from ALC's employees regarding disclosure adequacy.
- ALC applied to the court to revoke the subpoena, arguing it was an abuse of process and intruded on the arbitrator's jurisdiction.
5. Formal Citations
- ALC v ALF, Originating Summons No 747 of 2010/W, [2010] SGHC 231
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Contract signed | |
| Notice of Arbitration filed | |
| Statement of Case submitted | |
| Statement of Defence and Counterclaim submitted | |
| Procedural hearing | |
| Parties exchanged discovery | |
| Request to Produce Documents submitted | |
| Contested hearing before the Arbitrator | |
| Third Supplemental List of Documents submitted | |
| Fourth Supplemental List of Documents submitted | |
| Defendant questioned the adequacy of the plaintiff’s disclosure | |
| Plaintiff declined to provide sworn statements | |
| Arbitrator rejected the defendant’s request | |
| Fifth Supplemental List of Documents submitted | |
| Subpoena issued | |
| Application to set aside the Subpoena filed | |
| Application heard | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Arbitration hearing scheduled to begin |
7. Legal Issues
- Revocation of Subpoena
- Outcome: The court allowed the plaintiff's application to revoke the subpoena, finding that the defendant had improperly circumvented the arbitrator's jurisdiction.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Abuse of process
- Circumvention of arbitrator's jurisdiction
8. Remedies Sought
- Revocation of Subpoena
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Arbitration
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Commissioner for Railways v Small | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | (1938) 38 SR NSW) 564 | Australia | Cited regarding a subpoena being too wide if it imposes an unduly onerous obligation upon a person to collect and produce documents which have little or no relevance to the proceedings at hand and where a subpoena seeks to obtain discovery against a non-party or is used for the purposes of a fishing expedition. |
| Senior v Holdsworth | Queen's Bench | Yes | [1976] QB 23 | England and Wales | Cited regarding a subpoena being regarded as too wide if compliance with its wording would be oppressive and where to require the attendance of a witness would be oppressive. |
| National Employers Mutual General Association Ltd v Waind & Hill | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | [1978] 1 NSWLR 377 | Australia | Cited regarding a subpoena directed to a non-party being set aside if it is insufficiently precise and requires the non-party to make a judgment as to which documents relate to the issues between the parties. |
| Finnie v Dalglish | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | [1982] 1 NSWLR 400 | Australia | Cited regarding the more common form of objection to a subpoena is that it constitutes an abuse of process or where the subpoena has been issued for a collateral purpose such as where it seeks to obtain discovery or further discovery against a party. |
| Raymond v Tapson | Court of Appeal | Yes | (1882) LR 22 ChD 430 | England and Wales | Cited regarding where to require the attendance of a witness would be oppressive. |
| R v Baines | King's Bench Division | Yes | [1909] 1 KB 258 | England and Wales | Cited regarding where it is not issued for the purpose of obtaining relevant evidence and the person to whom it was addressed is unable to give relevant evidence. |
| R v Hurle-Hobbs, ex parte Simmons | King's Bench Division | Yes | [1945] 1 KB 165 | England and Wales | Cited regarding where there is an alternative statutory procedure for the production of documents. |
| Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa and Ors | High Court | Yes | [2003] 1 SLR 457 | Singapore | Cited regarding the threshold for satisfying the court that its discretion should be invoked in favour of setting aside a subpoena is therefore, not an easily surmountable one. |
| Basil Anthony Herman v Premier Security Co-operative Ltd and Ors | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] SGCA 15 | Singapore | Cited regarding the right of a litigant to bring relevant evidence before the court. |
| Auto Clean ‘N’ Shine Services (a firm) v Eastern Publishing Associates Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 427 | Singapore | Cited regarding a balance should be struck between the need to comply with the rules and the parties’ right to call witnesses whom they deem necessary to establish their case. |
| Anwar Siraj v Ting Kang Chung | High Court | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR(R) 287 | Singapore | Cited regarding the arbitrator is, subject to any procedure otherwise agreed between the parties as applying to the arbitration in question, master of his own procedure and has a wide discretionary power to conduct the arbitration proceedings in the way he sees fit, so long as what he is doing is not manifestly unfair or contrary to natural justice. |
| Soh Beng Tee & Co Pte Ltd v Fairmount Development Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR (R) 86 | Singapore | Cited regarding the arbitrator is, subject to any procedure otherwise agreed between the parties as applying to the arbitration in question, master of his own procedure and has a wide discretionary power to conduct the arbitration proceedings in the way he sees fit, so long as what he is doing is not manifestly unfair or contrary to natural justice. |
| Navigator Investment Services Ltd v Acclaim Insurance Brokers Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 25 | Singapore | Cited regarding the courts will “endeavour to do their level best to facilitate and promote arbitration between commercial parties whenever possible”. |
| Woh Hup Pte Ltd v Lian Teck Construction Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] SGCA 26 | Singapore | Cited regarding any matter submitted to arbitration, should, in general, and certainly wherever possible, be dealt with by the arbitral tribunal. |
| Gabriel Peter & Partners v Wee Chong Jin | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 649 | Singapore | Cited regarding the categories qualifying as an ‘abuse of process’ are not closed and depend on the circumstances of each case. |
| NCC International AB v Alliance Concrete Singapore Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 565 | Singapore | Cited regarding four categories of proceedings which may constitute an abuse of process. |
| Chee Siok Chin v Minister for Home Affairs | High Court | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 582 | Singapore | Cited regarding four categories of proceedings which may constitute an abuse of process. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 38, rule 14 of the Rules of Court |
| Order 69 rule 12 of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 332, r 5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Subpoena
- Arbitration
- Arbitrator
- Discovery
- Abuse of process
- Procedural Order
- IBA Rules
- Party autonomy
- Jurisdiction
- Disclosure
15.2 Keywords
- Arbitration
- Subpoena
- Singapore
- Construction
- Discovery
- Abuse of Process
16. Subjects
- Arbitration Procedure
- Subpoenas
- Judicial Review of Arbitration Decisions
17. Areas of Law
- Arbitration Law
- Civil Procedure