Daimler v Front Row: Exclusion of Appeal Rights under Arbitration Act via ICC Rules
In Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd v Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd, the Singapore High Court, presided over by Justice Woo Bih Li, addressed whether the parties had excluded their right of appeal to the High Court under Section 49(1) of the Arbitration Act by agreeing to submit disputes to arbitration under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce. The court declared that the parties had indeed excluded the right of appeal, finding that the adoption of the ICC Rules constituted an agreement to do so. Daimler's claim against Front Row for payment of an employee's salary and Front Row's counterclaim for contractual breach and misrepresentation had previously been dismissed by an arbitrator.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Declaration that the parties had excluded the right of appeal.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court ruled that Daimler and Front Row had excluded their right to appeal under the Arbitration Act by agreeing to ICC arbitration rules.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Summons dismissed | Lost | |
| Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Summons allowed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Woo Bih Li | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Daimler and Front Row entered into a joint venture agreement on 15 September 2005.
- The JVA contained an arbitration clause referring disputes to ICC Rules of Arbitration.
- Disputes arose, leading to an initial arbitration award on 3 July 2009.
- Part of the initial award was set aside by the High Court on 20 November 2009.
- Fresh arbitration proceedings commenced on 20 September 2010.
- A partial award was issued on 29 February 2012.
- Daimler sought leave to appeal against the partial award.
5. Formal Citations
- Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd v Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd, , [2012] SGHC 157
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Parties entered into a joint venture agreement. | |
| Arbitrator issued the 1st Award dismissing DSEA's claim and FR's counterclaim. | |
| Justice Andrew Ang set aside parts of the 1st Award dealing with FR’s counterclaim. | |
| FR commenced fresh arbitration proceedings against DSEA. | |
| New arbitrator issued a partial award. | |
| Summons 1927 of 2012 and the OS were fixed for hearing. | |
| High Court made a declaration that the parties had excluded the right of appeal. |
7. Legal Issues
- Exclusion of Right to Appeal
- Outcome: The court held that the parties had agreed to exclude the right of appeal to the High Court under s 49(1) of the Arbitration Act by agreeing to submit any dispute under the JVA to arbitration under the ICC Rules 1998.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Leave to appeal against the partial award
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Misrepresentation
10. Practice Areas
- Arbitration
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| American Diagnostica Inc v Gradipore Ltd | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | [1998] 44 NSWLR 312 | Australia | Cited for the proposition that stating an arbitration award should be final, conclusive, and binding is insufficient to exclude a right of appeal. |
| Holland Leedon Pte Ltd v Metalform Asia Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2011] 1 SLR 517 | Singapore | Cited to show how the High Court had granted leave to appeal even though the contractual provision there appeared to exclude the right of appeal under s 49(1) of the AA. |
| Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v Impregilo SpA and others | House of Lords | Yes | [2006] 1 AC 221 | England | Cited to support the view that Article 28.6 of the ICC Rules 1998 excludes the right of appeal. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Arbitration Act
- ICC Rules of Arbitration
- Exclusion of appeal
- Joint venture agreement
- Partial award
- Right of recourse
- Waiver
15.2 Keywords
- arbitration
- exclusion of appeal
- ICC Rules
- Singapore
- contract
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Arbitration | 95 |
| Contract Law | 80 |
| Commercial Disputes | 70 |
| Business Litigation | 60 |
| Joint Venture Agreement | 50 |
| Company Law | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- Contract Law