Triulzi Cesare SRL v Xinyi Group: Setting Aside Arbitration Award for Alleged Procedural Breaches and Public Policy Violation
Triulzi Cesare SRL, an Italian company, applied to the Singapore High Court to set aside a final arbitration award issued in favor of Xinyi Group (Glass) Co Ltd, a Hong Kong company. The arbitration concerned disputes arising from three contracts for the purchase of washing machines. Triulzi alleged breaches of agreed arbitral procedure, denial of a reasonable opportunity to be heard, and violation of Singapore's public policy due to the Tribunal's failure to apply the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods (CISG). The High Court dismissed Triulzi's application, finding no merit in the alleged breaches and upholding the arbitration award.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Originating Summons dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Written Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court dismisses Triulzi Cesare SRL's application to set aside an arbitration award, finding no breach of procedure or public policy.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Triulzi Cesare SRL | Applicant | Corporation | Application Dismissed | Lost | Paul Tan |
| Xinyi Group (Glass) Co Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Award Upheld | Won | Koh Swee Yen, Paul Loy |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Paul Tan | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Koh Swee Yen | WongPartnership LLP |
| Paul Loy | WongPartnership LLP |
4. Facts
- Triulzi and Xinyi entered into three contracts for the purchase of washing machines.
- The contracts provided for arbitration in Singapore.
- Disputes arose, and Xinyi commenced arbitration proceedings.
- The Tribunal issued a final award in favor of Xinyi, dismissing Triulzi's counterclaim.
- Triulzi applied to set aside the award, alleging breaches of procedure and public policy.
- Triulzi claimed there was an agreement to dispense with expert evidence, which Xinyi breached.
- Triulzi argued it was not given enough time to respond to Xinyi's expert evidence.
5. Formal Citations
- Triulzi Cesare SRL v Xinyi Group (Glass) Co Ltd, Originating Summons No 1114 of 2014, [2014] SGHC 220
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Triulzi and Xinyi entered into three contracts. | |
| Sole arbitrator appointed in the Arbitration. | |
| Case Management Conference held before the Tribunal. | |
| Tribunal forwarded Procedural Timetable and minutes of CMC to parties. | |
| Xinyi filed expert witness statement of Dr Bao Yiwang. | |
| Triulzi requested Tribunal to exclude Dr Bao’s Report. | |
| Tribunal directed Triulzi to file its own expert witness statement by 15 April 2013. | |
| Triulzi complained that the time given by the Tribunal for it to find an expert was “just too short”. | |
| Hearing convened for the Tribunal to give parties further directions. | |
| Evidentiary hearing began. | |
| Mr Shum applied to the Tribunal to adduce the expert witness statement of one Dr Alberto Piombo. | |
| Tribunal issued a final award. | |
| The Award was forwarded to the parties by the ICC Secretariat. | |
| Triulzi filed Originating Summons No 1114 of 2013 to set aside the Award. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Agreed Arbitral Procedure
- Outcome: The court found that there was no agreed procedure to dispense with expert evidence, and therefore no breach.
- Category: Procedural
- Denial of Reasonable Opportunity to be Heard
- Outcome: The court found that Triulzi was not denied a reasonable opportunity to be heard and that the Tribunal had exercised its case management powers reasonably and properly.
- Category: Procedural
- Violation of Public Policy
- Outcome: The court found that the Tribunal's failure to apply the CISG did not violate Singapore's public policy.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting Aside of Arbitration Award
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Arbitration
11. Industries
- Manufacturing
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero) TBK v + Joint Operation | High Court | Yes | [2010] 4 SLR 672 | Singapore | Cited regarding the parties’ agreed procedure in the context of arbitration. |
| Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee v Hammermills, Inc | United States District Court | Yes | 1992 WL 122712 (DDC, 1992) | United States | Cited regarding the materiality of procedural requirements that were not complied with and the nature of the departures from the parties’ agreed arbitral procedures. |
| Karaha Bodas Company, LLC v Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara | United States District Court | Yes | 190 F Supp 2d 936 (SD Tex, 2001) | United States | Cited regarding the requirement to show a violation of an arbitration agreement and substantial prejudice for an application under Art V(1)(d) of the New York Convention. |
| Williams v National Football League | United States District Court | Yes | 2012 WL 2366636 (D Colo, 2012) | United States | Cited regarding the confirmation of an award even though it was rendered after a specified time limit agreed upon by the parties as the complaining party was not substantially prejudiced by the delay. |
| Holding Tusculum BV v Louis Dreyfus Holding SAS | Québec Supreme Court | Yes | [2008] QCCS 5904 | Canada | Cited regarding the standard of a “material breach of procedure” or a breach that “presumably affected the award” and the requirement of prejudice. |
| Grand Pacific Holdings Ltd v Pacific China Holdings Ltd (in liq) (No 1) | Hong Kong Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 4 HKLRD 1 | Hong Kong | Cited regarding the Hong Kong courts having a discretion to refuse to set aside an award even where a violation of Article 34(2)(a) is established. |
| Downer-Hill Joint Venture v Government of Fiji | High Court | Yes | [2005] 1 NZLR 554 | New Zealand | Cited regarding the recognition of the court’s discretion in a setting-aside application. |
| Cargill International SA v Peabody Australia Mining Ltd | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | [2010] NSWSC 887 | Australia | Cited regarding the recognition of the court’s discretion in a setting-aside application. |
| CRW Joint Operation v PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero) TBK | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 305 | Singapore | Cited regarding the court may, in its discretion, decline to set aside an arbitral award even though one of the prescribed grounds for setting aside has been made out. |
| BLC and others v BLB and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 79 | Singapore | Cited regarding the use of the setting-aside procedure to raise new arguments that were not previously before the tribunal. |
| ADG and another v ADI and another | High Court | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 481 | Singapore | Cited regarding there is no distinction between the right to be heard as an aspect of the rules of natural justice under s 24 (b) of the IAA and as an aspect of being able to be heard within the meaning of Article 34(2)(a)(ii). |
| Sugar Australia Pty Ltd v Mackay Sugar Ltd | Queensland Supreme Court | Yes | [2012] QSC 38 | Australia | Cited regarding the question is whether the applicant was deprived unfairly of an opportunity to put its case, by argument and if relevant by evidence, against the reasoning by which the arbitrator had rejected the applicant’s 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. |
| TMM Division Maritima SA de CV v Pacific Richfield Marine Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 972 | Singapore | Cited regarding weight must be accorded to “the practical realities of the arbitral ecosystem such as promptness and price”. |
| Sanko Steamship Co Ltd v Shipping Corp of India and Selwyn and Clark (The Jhansi Ki Rani) | Not Available | Yes | [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 569 | England and Wales | Cited regarding when issuing procedural directions, an arbitral tribunal must consider the interests of both parties. |
| PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SA | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 597 | Singapore | Cited regarding an error of law does not engage the public policy ground in Art 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Model Law. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| ICC Rules of Arbitration 2012 |
| International Bar Association Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 | Not Available |
| International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Sale of Goods (United Nations Convention) Act (Cap 283A, 2013 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Arbitration Award
- Setting Aside
- Procedural Breach
- Public Policy
- UNCITRAL Model Law
- International Arbitration Act
- Case Management Conference
- Expert Witness Statement
- Reasonable Opportunity to be Heard
- ICC Rules
- Natural Justice
- Governing Law
- CISG
15.2 Keywords
- arbitration
- singapore
- setting aside
- procedural breach
- public policy
- international arbitration
- contract law
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- International Commercial Law
- Civil Procedure
17. Areas of Law
- Arbitration Law
- International Commercial Arbitration
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure