AAY v AAZ: Amendment of Order of Court and Publication of Judgment in Arbitration-Related Proceedings
In AAY and others v AAZ, the Singapore High Court addressed the defendant's application to amend a previous order concerning the confidentiality of Suit Y, related to arbitration proceedings. The defendant sought to allow publication of a redacted judgment. The court, presided over by Chan Seng Onn J, allowed the amendment, finding the original order contained an accidental omission. The court further ordered that the redacted version of the judgment could be published, considering it to be of major legal interest and sufficiently protecting confidentiality. The court considered the application under the International Arbitration Act.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Defendant's application to amend the Order of Court allowed; redacted version of the Judgment may be published.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
High Court case regarding the amendment of an order to allow the publication of a redacted judgment in arbitration proceedings. The court allowed the amendment and ordered publication.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AAY and others | Plaintiff | Other | Application to prevent publication denied | Lost | |
| AAZ | Defendant | Other | Application to amend Order of Court allowed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Seng Onn | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Plaintiffs applied for Suit Y to be heard in camera.
- Plaintiffs applied for any judgment in Suit Y not to be available for public inspection.
- The defendant sought to amend the Order of Court to reflect that it was made pursuant to sections 22 and 23 of the IAA.
- The plaintiffs argued that the in camera order barred publication of the Judgment.
- The defendant argued that a redacted version of the Judgment could be published under the IAA.
- The Court of Appeal delivered its decision on the plaintiffs’ appeal against the Judgment in November 2009.
- The Judgment in issue considered the most recent jurisprudence on confidentiality in arbitration.
5. Formal Citations
- AAY and others v AAZ, Suit Y (Summons A and Summons B), [2010] SGHC 350
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Suit Y filed | |
| Plaintiffs filed Summons B | |
| Hearing of Summons B; Suit Y to be heard in camera | |
| Judgment in Suit Y delivered, dismissing plaintiffs' claims | |
| Parties gave undertaking of confidentiality in relation to the Judgment | |
| Defendant requested Judgment be made available for public inspection | |
| Plaintiffs objected to defendant's request | |
| Summons B fixed for further hearing | |
| Plaintiffs filed an appeal against the Judgment | |
| Plaintiffs filed an application to the Court of Appeal for the appeal to be heard otherwise than in open court | |
| Consent order granted by Court of Appeal | |
| Hearing before the Court of Appeal | |
| Court of Appeal delivered its decision on the plaintiffs’ appeal | |
| Defendant requested for the issue of confidentiality and publication of the Judgment to be revisited | |
| Defendant stated intention to apply for amendment to the Order of Court | |
| Defendant applied for amendment of the Order of Court via Summons A | |
| Hearing of Summons A | |
| Decision rendered on Summons A | |
| Judgment Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Amendment of Court Order
- Outcome: The court held that the in camera order was an accidental slip or omission which could be amended under O 20 r 11 of the ROC.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Clerical mistake
- Accidental slip or omission
- Confidentiality in Arbitration
- Outcome: The court held that the confidentiality of the arbitration was sufficiently preserved by redacting the Judgment to be published.
- Category: Substantive
- Publication of Judgment
- Outcome: The court ordered that the redacted version of the Judgment may be published.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Amendment of Court Order
- Order for Suit Y to be heard in camera
- Order that any judgment pronounced or delivered in Suit Y not be made available for public inspection
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Arbitration
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Charles Bright & Co Ltd v Sellar | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1904] 1 KB 6 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the principle that a court cannot correct a mistake of its own in law or otherwise when amending judgments or orders. |
| Re Gist | High Court of Justice | Yes | [1904] 1 Ch 398 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the principle that a court cannot correct a mistake of its own in law or otherwise when amending judgments or orders. |
| Bentley v O’Sullivan | N/A | Yes | [1925] WN 95 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the principle that a court cannot correct a mistake of its own in law or otherwise when amending judgments or orders. |
| Molnlycke AB and anor v Proctor and Gamble Limited and ors (No. 6) | N/A | Yes | [1993] FRS 154 | N/A | Cited to distinguish between a mistake as to the legal effect of a court order and a mistake in the use of words to express the court’s manifest intention. |
| Regina v Cripps, ex parte Muldoon | N/A | Yes | [1984] QB 686 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a trial judge or a court cannot reconsider a final and regular decision once it has been perfected. |
| Preston Banking Company v William Allsup & Sons | N/A | Yes | [1895] 1 Ch 141 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a trial judge or a court cannot reconsider a final and regular decision once it has been perfected. |
| Emmott v Michael Wilson & Partners | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] EWCA Civ 184 | England and Wales | Cited for its discussion on the law of confidentiality in arbitration and the legal position on the implied obligation of confidentiality in arbitration. |
| Clibbery v Allan and anor | N/A | Yes | [2002] EWCA Civ 45 | England and Wales | Cited as authority for the proposition that there should be no subsequent publication of information arising from proceedings heard in camera. |
| Department of Economics, Policy and Development of the City of Moscow and another v Bankers Trust Co and another | N/A | Yes | [2004] EWCA Civ 314 | England and Wales | Cited as authority for the proposition that there should be no subsequent publication of information arising from proceedings heard in camera. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Order 20 rule 1 of the Rules of Court | Singapore |
| Order 42 Rule 2 of the Rules of Court | Singapore |
| Order 69A Rule 3(1)(a) of the Rules of Court | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act | Singapore |
| sections 8(2) and 8(3) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act | Singapore |
| International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| sections 22 and 23 of the International Arbitration Act | Singapore |
| Order 20 rule 11 of the Rules of Court | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- In camera
- Order of Court
- International Arbitration Act
- Confidentiality
- Redaction
- Publication
- Accidental slip or omission
- Major legal interest
15.2 Keywords
- Arbitration
- Confidentiality
- Publication
- Amendment
- Order of Court
- Singapore
- High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| International Arbitration | 80 |
| Arbitration | 75 |
| Confidentiality | 65 |
| Civil Procedure | 60 |
| Commercial Disputes | 50 |
| Rules of court | 50 |
| Contract Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Arbitration
- Confidentiality
- Publication of Judgments