AKN v ALC: Setting Aside Arbitral Award & Tribunal Jurisdiction

In AKN and another v ALC and others, the Singapore Court of Appeal addressed matters raised by parties following a prior judgment regarding the setting aside of an arbitral award. The court clarified the effect of setting aside an award, the tribunal's jurisdiction, and the possibility of remitting matters. The court made a declaration that claims related to Lost Land Claims remain to be determined between the relevant parties. The Liquidator will have his costs of this application against the Purchasers.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Declaration made that claims related to Lost Land Claims remain to be determined between the relevant parties.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The Singapore Court of Appeal clarified the effect of setting aside an arbitral award, addressing the tribunal's jurisdiction and the possibility of remitting matters.

1.7 Decision Date

26 November 2015

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Counsels
AKN	Appellant	Other	Ng Lip Chih of NLC Law Asia LLC Ang Leong Hao of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Adrian Wong Soon Peng of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Andre Yeap Poh Leong of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
AKO	Appellant	Other	Ng Lip Chih of NLC Law Asia LLC Ang Leong Hao of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Adrian Wong Soon Peng of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Andre Yeap Poh Leong of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
ALC	Respondent	Other	Evans Ng Hian Pheng of Rodyk & Davidson LLP
ALD	Respondent	Other	Zhuo Jiaxiang of Drew & Napier LLC Davinder Singh of Drew & Napier LLC David Fong of Drew & Napier LLC
ALE	Respondent	Other	Chan Hock Keng of WongPartnership LLP Chong Wan Yee Monica of WongPartnership LLP Alvin Yeo of WongPartnership LLP Lin Wei Qi Wendy of WongPartnership LLP
ALF	Respondent	Other

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Sundaresh Menon	Chief Justice	Yes
Andrew Phang Boon Leong	Justice of the Court of Appeal	No
Steven Chong	Judge	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Ng Lip Chih	NLC Law Asia LLC
Ang Leong Hao	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Adrian Wong Soon Peng	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Andre Yeap Poh Leong	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Evans Ng Hian Pheng	Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Zhuo Jiaxiang	Drew & Napier LLC
Davinder Singh	Drew & Napier LLC
David Fong	Drew & Napier LLC
Chan Hock Keng	WongPartnership LLP
Chong Wan Yee Monica	WongPartnership LLP
Alvin Yeo	WongPartnership LLP
Lin Wei Qi Wendy	WongPartnership LLP

4. Facts

The Court of Appeal previously delivered a judgment on 31 March 2015.
The prior judgment allowed, in part, an appeal against a High Court decision to set aside an arbitral award.
The parties raised matters following the prior judgment, leading to the present decision.
The Purchasers sought consequential orders, including identifying specific paragraphs of the Award that had been set aside.
The Secured Creditors and Liquidator sought costs of the appeal and proceedings before the Judge.
The Funds sought costs of the appeal and an order to delete references to them in the Award.
The court directed further submissions on the effect of setting aside parts of the award.

5. Formal Citations

AKN and another v ALC and others and other appeals, Civil Appeals Nos [P], [Q] and [R], [2015] SGCA 63
AKN and another v ALC and others and other appeals, , [2015] 3 SLR 488

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2015-03-31	Judgment delivered in AKN and another v ALC and others and other appeals [2015] 3 SLR 488
2015-04-01	Court direction issued regarding written submissions on costs and consequential orders
2015-04-16	Parties filed written submissions on costs and consequential orders
2014-11-17	Orders made by the Judge in OS No [L]
2015-05-25	Court letter issued indicating determinations on costs and clarifying certain matters
2015-06-24	Parties filed further written submissions
2015-08-12	Further hearing held; judgment reserved
2015-11-27	Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

Setting Aside Arbitral Award
- Outcome: The court clarified the effect of setting aside an arbitral award, addressing the tribunal's jurisdiction and the possibility of remitting matters.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Breach of natural justice
  - Failure to consider merits of case
Tribunal Jurisdiction
- Outcome: The court held that it has no power to remit an award after it has been set aside.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
  - Functus officio
  - Remission to tribunal
Res Judicata
- Outcome: The court considered the relevance of res judicata in the context of commencing fresh arbitration proceedings after an award was set aside.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Cause of action estoppel
  - Issue estoppel
  - Abuse of process

8. Remedies Sought

Declaration
Costs

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract
Loss of Profits

10. Practice Areas

Arbitration
Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
AKN and another v ALC and others and other appeals	High Court	Yes	[2015] 3 SLR 488	Singapore	The decision from which this appeal arose.
BLC and others v BLB and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 4 SLR 79	Singapore	Cited for the principle that Art 34(4) of the Model Law does not permit remission of the award to a newly constituted tribunal.
L W Infrastructure Pte Ltd v Lim Chin San Contractors Pte Ltd and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2013] 1 SLR 125	Singapore	Cited for the principle that Article 5 confines the power of the court to intervene in an arbitration to those instances which are provided for in the Model Law.
NCC International AB v Alliance Concrete Singapore Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2008] 2 SLR(R) 565	Singapore	Cited for the principle that Article 5 confines the power of the court to intervene in an arbitration to those instances which are provided for in the Model Law.
Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2010] SGHC 80	Singapore	Discussed in relation to the power of the court to remit matters to a new arbitrator.
Kempinski Hotels SA v PT Prima International Development	High Court	Yes	[2011] 4 SLR 633	Singapore	Discussed in relation to the power of the court to remit matters to the same tribunal.
L W Infrastructure Pte Ltd v Lim Chin San Contractors Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2014] 1 SLR 1221	Singapore	Discussed in relation to the effect of an order for remitter on the tribunal's jurisdiction.
Alvaro v Temple	Supreme Court of Western Australia	Yes	[2009] WASC 205	Australia	Referred to regarding the effect of an order for remitter on the tribunal's jurisdiction.
Interbulk Ltd v Aiden Shipping Co Ltd (The Vimeira) (No 1)	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 410	England and Wales	Referred to regarding the effect of an order for remitter on the tribunal's jurisdiction.
Mark Blake Builders Pty Ltd v Davis	Supreme Court of New South Wales	Yes	NSW 9403294	Australia	Referred to regarding the effect of an order for remitter on the tribunal's jurisdiction.
Soh Beng Tee & Co Pte Ltd v Fairmount Development Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 3 SLR(R) 86	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an arbitrator's jurisdiction is revived by the terms of the remission to the extent of the remission.
The Royal Bank of Scotland NV (formerly known as ABN Amro Bank NV) and others v TT International Ltd (nTan Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd and others, other parties) and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] SGCA 50	Singapore	Cited for the principles of res judicata and abuse of process.
Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd (formerly Contour Aerospace Ltd)	UK Supreme Court	Yes	[2014] AC 160	United Kingdom	Cited for the principles of res judicata and abuse of process.
Henderson v Henderson	Not available	Yes	(1843) 3 Hare 100; 67 ER 313	England and Wales	Cited for the 'extended' doctrine of res judicata.
Ching Mun Fong (executrix of the estate of Tan Geok Tee, deceased) v Liu Cho Chit and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2000] 1 SLR(R) 53	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the 'extended' doctrine of res judicata is part of the doctrine of abuse of process.
Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 1 SLR(R) 453	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the 'extended' doctrine of res judicata is part of the doctrine of abuse of process.
Zhang Run Zi v Koh Kim Seng and another	High Court	Yes	[2015] SGHC 175	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the 'extended' doctrine of res judicata is part of the doctrine of abuse of process.
Tan Bee Hoon (executrix for the estate of Quek Cher Choi, deceased) and another v Quek Hung Heong and others	High Court	Yes	[2015] SGHC 229	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the 'extended' doctrine of res judicata is part of the doctrine of abuse of process.
Econ Piling Pte Ltd and another (both formerly trading as Econ-NCC Joint Venture) v Shanghai Tunnel Engineering Co Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2011] 1 SLR 246	Singapore	Cited for the principle that courts will typically not rehear matters that have already been determined in arbitration.
PT First Media TBK (formerly known as PT Broadband Multimedia TBK v Astro Nusantara International BV and others and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 1 SLR 372	Singapore	Cited for the analysis of s 19B of the IAA.
PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero) TBK v CRW Joint Operation	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 4 SLR 364	Singapore	Cited for the elaboration of what 'matters that have already been determined' refer to.
Denmark Skibstekniske Konsulenter A/S I Likvidation (formerly known as Knud E Hansen A/S) v Ultrapolis 3000 Investments Ltd (formerly known as Ultrapolis 3000 Theme Park Investments Ltd)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2011] 4 SLR 997	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court may disallow a party to raise certain points in court which it could and should have raised in arbitration.
Dallal v Bank Mellat	Queen's Bench	Yes	[1986] 1 QB 441	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the court may disallow a party to raise certain points in court which it could and should have raised in arbitration.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 19B of the International Arbitration Act	Singapore
s 8A(2) of the International Arbitration Act	Singapore
Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 2002 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Arbitral Award
Setting Aside
Tribunal Jurisdiction
Remission
Functus Officio
Res Judicata
Abuse of Process
International Arbitration Act
Model Law
Lost Land Claims

15.2 Keywords

arbitration
setting aside
tribunal
jurisdiction
remission
res judicata

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Setting Aside Arbitral Award	80
Arbitration	75
International Arbitration Act	70
Remission	65
Civil Procedure	60
Functus Officio	50
Res Judicata	45
Commercial Disputes	40
Contract Law	30
Costs	25

16. Subjects

Arbitration
Civil Procedure
Contract Law