ADG v ADI: Setting Aside Arbitral Award for Failure to Present Case & Breach of Natural Justice

ADG and its holding company sought to set aside an arbitral award issued in favor of ADI by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre. The plaintiffs argued they were unable to present their case and that their rights were prejudiced by a breach of natural justice. The High Court of Singapore, presided over by Justice Vinodh Coomaraswamy, dismissed the applications, finding no grounds to set aside the award. The plaintiffs have appealed the decision.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Applications dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Plaintiffs sought to set aside an arbitral award, alleging inability to present their case and breach of natural justice. The court dismissed the applications.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
ADGPlaintiffCorporationApplication DismissedLost
ADIDefendantCorporationApplication GrantedWon
Second plaintiffPlaintiffCorporationApplication DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Vinodh CoomaraswamyJusticeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Lionel LeoWongPartnership LLP
Alvin YeoWongPartnership LLP
Chou Sean YuWongPartnership LLP
Oh Sheng LoongWongPartnership LLP
Edmund KohWongPartnership LLP
Ang Cheng HockAllen & Gledhill LLP
Margaret LingAllen & Gledhill LLP

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiffs sought to set aside an arbitral award in favor of the defendant.
  2. Plaintiffs argued they were unable to present their case due to the Tribunal's closure of proceedings.
  3. Plaintiffs claimed the Tribunal's refusal to reopen proceedings prevented them from presenting relevant evidence.
  4. The Tribunal closed proceedings on 4 June 2013 and declined to reopen them on 9 June 2013.
  5. The plaintiffs argued that new evidence emerged after the closure of proceedings that would have impacted the Tribunal's findings.
  6. The defendant argued that the plaintiffs were attempting to re-litigate the disputes and delay enforcement of the award.
  7. The High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' applications to set aside the award.

5. Formal Citations

  1. ADG and another v ADI and another matter, Originating Summons No [K], Originating Summons No [L] (Summons No [M]), [2014] SGHC 73

6. Timeline

DateEvent
First plaintiff entered into three Survey Agreements.
Survey periods for Region 1 and Region 2 Survey Agreements expired.
Corporation sent first plaintiff a letter regarding the expiry of exploration period.
Corporation sent first plaintiff a letter restating contents of its 4 December 2008 letter.
Defendant and first plaintiff entered into the Option agreement.
First plaintiff and the Corporation entered into a Memorandum of Understanding.
First plaintiff and the Corporation negotiated agreements to amend both the Region 1 and Region 2 Survey Agreements.
Corporation took the position that the Survey Agreements were no longer valid.
Corporation took the position that the Survey Agreements were no longer valid.
Corporation issued a notice to the first plaintiff informing it that the survey periods under the Survey Agreements had expired.
Representatives from the defendant met representatives from the Corporation.
First plaintiff replied rejecting the termination and requesting a meeting of the Committee.
Corporation's lawyers issued a letter to the first plaintiff purporting to terminate the Survey Agreements.
First plaintiff served a notice of default on the defendant under the Option.
Corporation's lawyers issued a letter to the first plaintiff purporting to terminate the Survey Agreements.
Defendant terminated the Option, called on the guarantee, and commenced arbitration.
Corporation posted a notice on its website stating the Region 1 and Region 2 Survey Agreements had expired.
First phase of oral hearing in the arbitration began.
First phase of oral hearing in the arbitration concluded.
Second phase of oral hearing in the arbitration began.
Second phase of oral hearing in the arbitration concluded.
Tribunal notified parties that it proposed to declare the proceedings closed.
Tribunal declared the proceedings closed.
Plaintiffs applied to reopen proceedings.
Tribunal dismissed the first plaintiff’s application to reopen the proceedings.
Corporation withdrew a notice which it posted on its website on 9 March 2011.
Ministry B issued a notice to the first plaintiff stating that it had changed the survey unit in the SLs for Region 1 and Region 2 from the Corporation to the first plaintiff.
Tribunal issued its award.
Plaintiffs applied to set aside the award.
Defendant commenced separate proceedings seeking leave to enforce the award.
Assistant registrar granted the defendant leave to enforce the award subject to the plaintiffs’ right to set that order aside.
Plaintiffs applied to set aside the enforcement order.
High Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ applications.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Natural Justice
    • Outcome: The court found no breach of natural justice.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Denial of opportunity to present evidence
      • Unreasonable closure of proceedings
  2. Inability to Present Case
    • Outcome: The court found that the plaintiffs were not unable to present their case.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Exclusion of relevant evidence
      • Premature closure of proceedings

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Setting Aside Arbitral Award
  2. Resisting Enforcement of Arbitral Award

9. Cause of Actions

  • Setting Aside Arbitral Award

10. Practice Areas

  • Arbitration
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Natural Resources

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Soh Beng Tee & Co Pte Ltd v Fairmount Development Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 86SingaporeCited for the principle that a court has power to set aside an award only on the limited grounds expressly prescribed in Article 34 of the Model Law and s 24 of the IAA and the overarching judicial policy of minimal curial intervention in arbitration.
PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v DexiaBank SACourt of AppealYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 597SingaporeCited for the principle that a court has power to set aside an award only on the limited grounds expressly prescribed in Article 34 of the Model Law and s 24 of the IAA.
John Holland Construction & Engineering Pty Ltd v Toyo Engineering Corp (Japan)Court of AppealYes[2001] 1 SLR(R) 443SingaporeCited for the four-limbed test that a party applying to set aside an award on the basis that a rule of natural justice has been breached must identify the relevant rule, how it was breached, how the breach was connected to the making of the award, and how the breach prejudiced the applicant’s rights.
Trustees of Rotoaira Forest Trust v Attorney-GeneralHigh CourtYes[1999] 2 NZLR 452New ZealandCited for the principle that each party must be given a full opportunity to present its case, which includes a reasonable opportunity to present evidence and argument in support of its own case, test its opponent's case in cross-examination, and rebut adverse evidence and argument.
TMM Division Maritima SA de CV v Pacific Richfield Marine Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2013] 4 SLR 972SingaporeCited for the principle that parties who choose to arbitrate in Singapore or under the SIAC Rules agree to give the Tribunal a wide and flexible discretion to determine its own procedures and processes and to receive and evaluate competing evidence and arguments in order to arrive at its determination.
Grand Pacific Holdings Ltd v Pacific China Holdings Ltd (in liq) (No 1)Court of AppealYes[2012] 4 HKLRD 1Hong KongCited for the principle that before a court finds that a party was unable to present its case within the meaning of Article 34(2)(a)(ii) of the Model Law, the conduct complained of must be sufficiently serious or egregious so that one could say a party has been denied due process.
R v Avon County Council ex parte CrabtreeCourt of AppealYes[1996] 1 FLR 502England and WalesCited for the principle that the rules of fairness or natural justice are not rigid but depend on their context.
Dongwoo Mann+Hummel Co Ltd v Mann+Hummel GmbHHigh CourtYes[2008] 3 SLR(R) 871SingaporeCited as an example of a valid competing consideration in arbitration is preserving a third-party’s right of confidentiality in documents presented to the Tribunal.
LW Infrastructure Pte Ltd v Lim Chin San Contractors Pte Ltd and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2013] 1 SLR 125SingaporeCited for the test of prejudice in determining whether an arbitral award should be set aside.
F Hoffmann La Roche & Co AG v Secretary of State for Trade and IndustryHouse of LordsYes[1975] AC 295United KingdomCited for the principle that the right to be heard does not require a decision maker to disclose what he is minded to decide so that the parties may have a further opportunity of criticising his mental processes before he reaches a final decision.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Arbitration Rules of the SIAC, 4th edition, 1 July 2010

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed)Singapore
Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 2002 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Arbitral Award
  • Setting Aside
  • Natural Justice
  • Inability to Present Case
  • International Arbitration
  • UNCITRAL Model Law
  • Survey Agreements
  • Option Agreement
  • Representations and Warranties
  • Singapore International Arbitration Centre
  • SIAC Rules

15.2 Keywords

  • arbitration
  • setting aside
  • natural justice
  • international arbitration
  • singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Arbitration90
International Arbitration90
International Arbitration Act85
International Commercial Arbitration80
Contract Law70
Breach of Contract60
Estoppel30
Administrative Law20

16. Subjects

  • Arbitration
  • Civil Procedure