AQU v AQV: Application to Set Aside Arbitration Award for Breach of Natural Justice

In AQU v AQV, the High Court of Singapore heard an application by AQU to set aside an arbitration award rendered in favor of AQV. AQU alleged breaches of natural justice by the arbitrator. The court, per Judith Prakash J, dismissed the application, finding no breaches of natural justice in the arbitrator's decision-making process. The underlying dispute concerned payments for stone finishings supplied by AQV to AQU under two sub-contracts.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

AQU applied to set aside an arbitration award, alleging breaches of natural justice. The court dismissed the application, finding no such breaches.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
AQUPlaintiffCorporationApplication dismissedLost
AQVDefendantCorporationAward upheldWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Judith PrakashJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Kelvin ChiaSamuel Seow Law Corporation
Ng YuenMalkin & Maxwell LLP

4. Facts

  1. The plaintiff applied to set aside an arbitration award.
  2. The plaintiff alleged breaches of natural justice by the arbitrator.
  3. The underlying dispute concerned payments for stone finishings supplied under two sub-contracts.
  4. The arbitrator found in favor of the Supplier in respect of its claims and dismissed the counterclaim of the Contractor.
  5. The Contractor claimed the Arbitrator reached a conclusion not argued by either party.
  6. The Contractor claimed the Arbitrator failed to consider an argument raised by the plaintiff.
  7. The Contractor claimed the Arbitrator made a finding of fact in the absence of any logically probative evidence to support the same.

5. Formal Citations

  1. AQU v AQV, Originating Summons No 133 of 2014, [2015] SGHC 26

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Contract awarded to the Supplier for the supply and delivery of stone finishing.
Contract novated, substituting the Contractor for Times Development Pte Ltd.
Contractor sent the Supplier a Letter of Acceptance – Subcontract Standard Clauses (Supply Only).
Supplier sent a letter stating it was not responsible for taking site measurements.
Supplier sent a letter stating it was entitled to payment based on quantities supplied.
Parties met to discuss matters raised by the Supplier's letters.
Supplier sent a letter to the Contractor referencing prior letters and the meeting.
Supplier signed the Letter of Acceptance with a handwritten clause.
Contractor engaged the Supplier to supply and deliver tiles and stone finishings to common areas.
Supplier sent the Contractor a Notice of Arbitration.
Parties agreed to the appointment of the Arbitrator.
Tribunal was constituted.
Arbitrator heard evidence.
Parties filed written submissions and reply submissions.
Award was delivered.
Contractor filed application to set aside the Award.
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Natural Justice
    • Outcome: The court found no breach of natural justice.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to consider argument
      • Finding of fact without evidence
      • Conclusion not argued by either party

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Setting aside of arbitration award

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Arbitration
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Construction

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 there may be a breach of natural justice if an arbitrator decides a case on a point he has invented for himself.
TMM Division Maritima SA de CV v Pacific Richfield Marine Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2013] 4 SLR 972SingaporeCited for the principle that arbitrators are not restricted to adopting only the premises put forward by the parties in their conclusions.
Pacific Recreation Pte Ltd v S Y Technology Inc and Another AppealCourt of AppealYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 491SingaporeCited for the principle that courts can make reasonable inferences of fact and findings that lie between the extreme positions taken by parties.
BLC v BLBCourt of AppealYes[2014] 4 SLR 79SingaporeCited for the principle that an award should be read in a reasonable and commercial way, not with a meticulous legal eye to find faults.
Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2010] SGHC 80SingaporeCited for the principle that it is a breach of natural justice for an arbitrator to disregard submissions and arguments made by parties without considering the merits thereof.
Castel Electronics Pty Ltd v TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd (No 2)Federal Court of AustraliaNo[2012] FCA 1214AustraliaCited in relation to the 'no evidence' rule as a potential basis for setting aside an arbitral award for breach of natural justice.
Downer-Hill Joint Venture v Government of FijiHigh CourtNo[2005] 1 NZLR 554New ZealandCited in relation to the 'no evidence' rule as a potential basis for setting aside an arbitral award for breach of natural justice.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

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

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Arbitration Award
  • Natural Justice
  • Nominated Sub-Contract
  • Domestic Sub-contract
  • As-built quantities
  • Delivered quantities
  • Letter of Acceptance
  • Shop Drawings
  • Variation Order

15.2 Keywords

  • Arbitration
  • Natural Justice
  • Singapore
  • Construction
  • Contract

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Arbitration90
Contract Law75
Construction Law60
Natural justice50

16. Subjects

  • Arbitration
  • Contract Law
  • Civil Procedure