PT Central Investindo v Franciscus Wongso: Challenge to Arbitrator's Impartiality and Setting Aside of Award
PT Central Investindo ("PTCI") filed Originating Summons No 510 of 2013 in the High Court of Singapore to remove an arbitrator, Tay Yu-Jin, in an arbitration administered by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre ("SIAC"), ARB 056/09/MM, between PTCI and Franciscus Wongso ("FW") and Chan Shih Mei ("CSM"). PTCI argued justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator's impartiality. After the arbitrator issued his award, PTCI filed Summons No 317 of 2014 for a consequential order to set aside the award and Originating Summons No 48 of 2014 as a fall-back application to set aside the award. Belinda Ang Saw Ean J dismissed both originating summonses, finding no justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator's impartiality.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Originating Summons No 510 of 2013 and Originating Summons No 48 of 2014 were dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Written Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Challenge to arbitrator's impartiality and application to set aside award. The court dismissed both applications, finding no justifiable doubts as to impartiality.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PT Central Investindo | Applicant, Respondent | Corporation | Application Dismissed | Lost | Samuel Chacko, Angeline Soh |
| Franciscus Wongso | Respondent | Individual | Judgment for Respondent | Won | Chong Yee Leong, Azmin Jailani |
| Chan Shih Mei | Respondent | Individual | Judgment for Respondent | Won | Chong Yee Leong, Azmin Jailani |
| Soekotjo Gunawan | Respondent | Individual | Judgment for Respondent | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Samuel Chacko | Legis Point LLC |
| Angeline Soh | Legis Point LLC |
| Chong Yee Leong | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Azmin Jailani | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
4. Facts
- PT Central Investindo (PTCI) entered into an Arranger Fee Agreement with Franciscus Wongso and Chan Shih Mei.
- The agreement involved securing PT Natrindo Telepon Seluler (NTS) as a customer to lease telecommunication towers.
- A dispute arose over the payment of arranger fees for 157 telecommunication towers.
- PTCI challenged the impartiality of the arbitrator appointed to resolve the dispute.
- The arbitrator issued an award before the challenge to his impartiality was determined.
- PTCI sought to set aside the award based on the arbitrator's alleged bias and procedural irregularities.
- The Preliminary Agreement between PTCI and NTS was dated September 12, 2007.
5. Formal Citations
- PT Central Investindo v Franciscus Wongso and others and another matter, Originating Summons No 510 of 2013; Summons No 317 of 2014, Originating Summons No 48 of 2014, [2014] SGHC 190
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Arranger Fee Agreement signed between PT Central Investindo and Franciscus Wongso and Chan Shih Mei | |
| Arbitrator appointed pursuant to arbitration clause in Arranger Agreement | |
| Substantive hearing in the Arbitration began | |
| Substantive hearing in the Arbitration concluded | |
| Originating Summons No 510 of 2013 filed | |
| Arbitrator issued the Award | |
| Originating Summons No 48 of 2014 filed | |
| Summons No 317 of 2014 filed | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Impartiality of Arbitrator
- Outcome: The court found no justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator's impartiality.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Apparent Bias
- Failure to treat parties equally
- Ignoring party's right to be heard
- Setting Aside Arbitral Award
- Outcome: The court found no basis to challenge the Award under s 24 of the IAA or Art 34 of the Model Law.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Breach of natural justice
- Arbitration not conducted in accordance with agreement of parties
- Award contrary to public policy
8. Remedies Sought
- Removal of Arbitrator
- Setting Aside of Arbitral Award
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Arbitration
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Telecommunications
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Laker Airway Inc v FLS Aerospace Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [2000] 1 WLR 113 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that arbitration would be impossible if one party could require an arbitrator to retire by making unjustified allegations about impartiality or bias. |
| Re Shankar Alan s/o Anant Kulkarni | Unknown | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 85 | Singapore | Cited for the 'reasonable suspicion test' to be applied for determining apparent bias. |
| Turner (East Asia) Pte Ltd v Builders Federal (Hong Kong) Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [1988] 1 SLR(R) 483 | Singapore | Cited for the 'reasonable suspicion test' to be applied for determining apparent bias. |
| Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan Yew | Unknown | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR(R) 791 | Singapore | Cited for applying the 'reasonable suspicion test' to judges in court proceedings. |
| Tang Liang Hong v Lee Kuan Yew | Unknown | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 576 | Singapore | Cited for applying the 'reasonable suspicion test' to judges in court proceedings. |
| Livesey v New South Wales Bar Association | High Court of Australia | Yes | [1983] 151 CLR 288 | Australia | Cited for the test of apparent bias formulated in Australia. |
| Yee Hong Pte Ltd v Powen Electrical Engineering Pte Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 512 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the mere fact that a party had lost confidence in the arbitrator would not be justification for his removal. |
| Mitsui Engineering & Shipbuilding Co Ltd v Easton Graham Rush | Unknown | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR(R) 14 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the supervising court has no power under the Model Law to intervene to restrain the arbitrator from continuing with the arbitral proceedings. |
| Modern Engineering (Bristol) Ltd v C Miskin & Son Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 135 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that it was not a question as to the fitness of the arbitrator to conduct the proceedings but rather whether the arbitrator’s conduct was such as to destroy the confidence of the parties in his ability to come to a fair and just conclusion. |
| Kempinski Hotels SA v PT Prima International Development | High Court | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 633 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the arbitrator in that case did not enter into the fray by raising inquiries relevant to the proceedings. |
| PT Prima International Development v Kempinski Hotels SA | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 98 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Arbitrator had the power to conduct enquiries as may appear to be necessary or expedient under Rule 24.1(e) of the 2007 Rules. |
| Grand Pacific Holdings Ltd v Pacific China Holdings (in liq) (No 1) | Unknown | Yes | [2012] 4 HKLRD 1 | Hong Kong | Cited for the principle that there could be no logical reason to differentiate between the proactive case management powers of a judge under our Rules of Court and the proactive case management powers of an arbitrator. |
| Todd Taranaki Limited and Another v Energy Infrastructure Limited and Another | High Court | Yes | [2007] NZHC 1516 | New Zealand | Cited for the principle that the nature of the challenged arbitrator’s conduct necessary to warrant a finding of justifiable doubt as to impartiality will be particular to each case. |
| PT First Media TBK v Astro Nusantara International BV | Unknown | No | [2014] 1 SLR 372 | Singapore | Cited to distinguish between 'instant court control' and 'delayed court control'. |
| L W Infrastructure Pte Ltd v Lim Chin San Contractors Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 1221 | Singapore | Cited for the possibility that parties had the option of recommencing arbitral proceedings. |
| John Holland Pty Ltd v Toyo Engineering Corp (Japan) | Unknown | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR(R) 443 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements that a party applying to set aside an award on grounds of breach of natural justice must identify the relevant rule of natural justice, how that rule was breached, how the breach was connected to the making of the award, and how the breach prejudiced the applicant’s right. |
| Soh Beng Tee & Co Pte Ltd v Fairmount Development Pte Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 86 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements that a party applying to set aside an award on grounds of breach of natural justice must identify the relevant rule of natural justice, how that rule was breached, how the breach was connected to the making of the award, and how the breach prejudiced the applicant’s right. |
| TMM (Division Maritime SA de CV v Pacific Richfield Marine Pte Ltd | Unknown | No | [2013] 4 SLR 972 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Award was “wholly at odds with the established evidence” in that the Arbitrator had ignored PTCI’s evidence. |
| Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd | High Court | No | [2010] SGHC 80 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that there would be a breach of natural justice if the tribunal disregards the submissions and arguments made by the parties on the issues without considering the merits thereof. |
| PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SA | Unknown | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 597 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that under the IAA, an error of law or erroneous finding of fact made in an arbitral award is not capable of establishing a ground for the award to be set aside. |
| BLC and others v BLB and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] SGCA 40 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that under the IAA, an error of law or erroneous finding of fact made in an arbitral award is not capable of establishing a ground for the award to be set aside. |
| L W Infrastructure Pte Ltd v Lim Chin San Contractors Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 125 | Singapore | Cited as authority for the proposition that the Model Law framework did not provide for any residual powers to the supervisory court. |
| Beijing Sinozonto Mining Investment Co Ltd v Goldenray Consortium (Singapore) Pte Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 814 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that lack of impartiality and independence of the tribunal that would certainly shock the conscience and be clearly injurious to the public good or wholly offensive to the ordinary reasonable and fully informed member of the public is a recognised ground for setting aside an award under Art 34(2)(b)(ii). |
| R v S (RD) | Supreme Court | Yes | [1997] 3 SCR 484 | Canada | Cited for the principle that if a reasonable apprehension of bias arises, it colours the entire proceedings and it cannot be cured by the correctness of the subsequent decision. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| 2007 SIAC Rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Arranger Fee Agreement
- Arbitrator Impartiality
- Setting Aside Award
- Justifiable Doubts
- Apparent Bias
- Natural Justice
- Singapore International Arbitration Centre
- UNCITRAL Model Law
- Functus Officio
15.2 Keywords
- arbitration
- impartiality
- bias
- setting aside
- award
- singapore
- international arbitration
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- Commercial Dispute
- Breach of Contract
- Civil Procedure
17. Areas of Law
- Arbitration Law
- International Commercial Arbitration
- Civil Procedure