L W Infrastructure v Lim Chin San: Functus Officio & Arbitration After Award Set Aside
In L W Infrastructure Pte Ltd v Lim Chin San Contractors Pte Ltd, the Singapore High Court addressed whether an arbitral tribunal retains jurisdiction to issue an additional award for pre-award interest after the Court of Appeal set aside a prior additional award. L W Infrastructure Pte Ltd sought a declaration that the tribunal retained jurisdiction, while Lim Chin San Contractors Pte Ltd argued the tribunal was functus officio. The High Court dismissed L W Infrastructure Pte Ltd's application, holding that the tribunal's jurisdiction expired upon issuing the initial additional award and was not revived by the setting aside.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed in its entirety with costs.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Singapore High Court held that an arbitral tribunal becomes functus officio after an award is set aside, absent express orders.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L W Infrastructure Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Lim Chin San Contractors Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Application Dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- LWI appointed LCSC as its sub-contractor for the construction of an industrial building.
- Disputes arose from the sub-contract and were referred to arbitration.
- The Tribunal rendered a Final Award in which LWI was awarded a sum with simple interest.
- LWI appealed, and the High Court ordered certain matters to be remitted to the Tribunal.
- The Tribunal rendered a Supplementary Award.
- LWI requested an additional award for pre-award interest, and the Tribunal issued an Additional Award.
- LCSC successfully applied to set aside the Additional Award on the ground of a breach of the rules of natural justice.
- The Court of Appeal upheld the setting aside of the Additional Award and declined to remit the matter to the Tribunal.
5. Formal Citations
- L W Infrastructure Pte Ltd v Lim Chin San Contractors Pte Ltd, Originating Summons No 29 of 2013, [2013] SGHC 264
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Tribunal rendered the Final Award. | |
| Supplementary award issued to correct typographical errors in the Final Award. | |
| LWI filed an appeal on various questions of law by way of Originating Summons No 759 of 2010. | |
| LCSC filed a cross-appeal by way of Originating Summons No 769 of 2010. | |
| The High Court dismissed LCSC’s appeal and substantially allowed LWI’s appeal. | |
| The Tribunal rendered another supplementary award. | |
| LWI requested the Tribunal to grant an additional award for pre-award interest. | |
| The Tribunal rendered the Additional Award providing for pre-award interest in favour of LWI. | |
| LCSC applied to the High Court under Originating Summons No 988 of 2011 to set aside the Additional Award. | |
| The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision to set aside the Additional Award. | |
| LWI wrote to the Tribunal reiterating its request made on 17 October 2011 for an additional award of pre-award interest to be issued. | |
| The Tribunal wrote to the parties stating that the setting aside of the Additional Award did not revive his jurisdiction. | |
| LWI brought the present application in OS 29/2013. | |
| The application was heard by this court. | |
| LWI filed Summons No 2051 of 2013 for leave to amend the title of these proceedings. | |
| SUM 2051/2013 was heard. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Functus Officio
- Outcome: The court held that the Tribunal's jurisdiction expired upon issuing the Additional Award and was not revived by the setting aside.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Expiry of Tribunal's Jurisdiction
- Revival of Jurisdiction after Setting Aside
- Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal
- Outcome: The court determined that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to issue a further additional award.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Scope of Remitter Order
- Validity of Arbitration Agreement
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration that the Tribunal retains jurisdiction to issue another additional award for pre-award interest.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L W Infrastructure Pte Ltd v Lim Chin San Contractors Pte Ltd and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 125 | Singapore | Upheld the High Court’s decision to set aside the Additional Award. |
| PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SA | High Court | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 597 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that the definition of “award” in the Act does not include a negative determination of jurisdiction as it is not a decision on the substance of the dispute. |
| Five Ocean Salvage Ltd v Wenzhou Timber Group | Not available | Yes | [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 289 | England | Cited for the principle that where there has been a breach of the rules of natural justice on the part of an arbitral tribunal in the course of making an award, the tribunal retains no jurisdiction to repair that breach. |
| Martin Dawes v Treasures & Son Ltd | Not available | Yes | [2011] 2 All ER (Comm) 569 | England | Cited for the definition of functus officio. |
| Anwar Siraj and another v Teo Hee Lai Building Construction Pte Ltd | Not available | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 500 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the arbitral proceedings are concluded when an award is made and published. |
| Hussmann (Europe) Ltd v Pharaon (formerly trading as Al Ameen Development & Trade Establishment) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] EWCA Civ 266 | England | Discussed in detail regarding the effect of setting aside an arbitral award on the tribunal's jurisdiction. Distinguished on the facts. |
| Alvaro v Temple | Supreme Court of Western Australia | Yes | [2009] WASC 205 | Australia | Cited for the proposition that an order for remitter revives the jurisdiction of the original tribunal to the extent that the order, on its proper construction, so provides. |
| Interbulk Ltd v Aiden Shipping Co Ltd (The “Vimeira”) (No 1) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 410 | England | Cited for the proposition that an order for remitter revives the jurisdiction of the original tribunal to the extent that the order, on its proper construction, so provides. |
| Interbulk Ltd v Aiden Shipping Co Ltd (The “Vimeira”) | Not available | Yes | [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 66 | England | Background to the Vimeira saga. |
| Interbulk Ltd v Aiden Shipping Co Ltd (The “Vimeira”) (No 2) | Not available | Yes | [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 377 | England | Background to the Vimeira saga. |
| Interbulk Ltd v Aiden Shipping Co Ltd (The “Vimeira”) (No 3) | Not available | Yes | [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 75 | England | Background to the Vimeira saga. |
| Mark Blake Builder Pty Ltd v Davis | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | NSW 9403294 | Australia | Discussed the consequences of setting aside and remission in light of the Vimeira saga and other case authorities. |
| ABB Service Pty Ltd v Pyrmont Light Rail Company Ltd | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | [2010] NSWSC 831 | Australia | Discussed the dichotomy between awards made within power and those made beyond power. |
| Internaut Shipping GmbH, Sphinx Navigation Limited of Liberia v Fercometal Sarl | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] EWCA Civ 812 | England | Explained the facts of Hussmann v Pharaon. |
| Tang Boon Jek Jeffrey v Tan Poh Leng Stanley | Not available | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 273 | Singapore | Noted that the scheme under the Model Law (and, presumably, the Act) is quite different from the English regime. |
| Re Scibilia & Lejo Holdings Pty Ltd Arbitration | Not available | Yes | [1985] 1 Qd R 94 | Australia | Stated that if an award is ordered to be wholly set aside, then absent any other indication in the order, the award is deprived of all legal effect, the arbitrator reverts to his status immediately before the award was determined, the arbitrator is no longer functus officio, and the arbitrator remains seized of the reference. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 69, r 4 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 1985 Ed) | Singapore |
| International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Functus Officio
- Arbitration
- Additional Award
- Setting Aside
- Jurisdiction
- Remitter
- Pre-award Interest
15.2 Keywords
- arbitration
- functus officio
- setting aside
- jurisdiction
- pre-award interest
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Arbitration | 90 |
| Functus Officio | 75 |
| Setting Aside Arbitral Award | 65 |
| Jurisdiction | 60 |
| Civil Procedure | 50 |
| Breach of Contract | 40 |
| Contract Law | 40 |
| Construction Contract | 35 |
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- Civil Procedure