AYH v AYI: Setting Aside Arbitration Award for Breach of Natural Justice and Exceeding Submission Scope
In AYH v AYI and AYJ, the Singapore High Court dismissed AYH's application to set aside an arbitration award. AYH argued that the award breached natural justice and exceeded the scope of submission by considering the legal effect of an agreement (August 2014 Agreement) not initially part of the arbitration. The court, presided over by Justice Judith Prakash, found that the agreement was relevant to the issue of impossibility of performance under the Deed and that AYH had sufficient opportunity to address its validity. The court dismissed the application with costs.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court dismissed AYH's application to set aside an arbitration award, finding no breach of natural justice or that the award exceeded the scope of submission.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AYH | Applicant, Respondent | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | Francis Xavier SC, Alina Chia, Derek On, Tee Su Mien |
| AYI | Respondent, Applicant | Corporation | Successful Resistance of Application | Won | Andre Maniam SC, Adeline Ong, Ho Wei Jie |
| AYJ | Respondent, Applicant | Corporation | Successful Resistance of Application | Won | Andre Maniam SC, Adeline Ong, Ho Wei Jie |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Judith Prakash | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Francis Xavier SC | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
| Alina Chia | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
| Derek On | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
| Tee Su Mien | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
| Andre Maniam SC | WongPartnership LLP |
| Adeline Ong | WongPartnership LLP |
| Ho Wei Jie | WongPartnership LLP |
4. Facts
- AYH, AYI, and AYJ entered into a Deed on 26 June 2013 to settle disputes related to PTX operations.
- AYH agreed to transfer assets and cash to PT BB (now owned by BB PLC) under the Deed.
- AYH failed to make payments or transfer assets as agreed in the Deed.
- BB PLC and PT BB commenced arbitration against AYH for specific performance of the Deed.
- AYH argued the Deed was void for common mistake or should be rescinded for misrepresentation.
- An agreement dated 18 August 2014 was entered into between BB PLC, PT BB and PTX.
- The tribunal found in favor of BB PLC and PT BB, rejecting AYH's arguments on common mistake.
5. Formal Citations
- AYH v AYI and another, HC/Originating Summons No 349 of 2015, [2015] SGHC 300
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Deed signed between AYH, AYI, and AYJ to settle disputes related to PTX operations. | |
| First payment due from AYH under the Deed. | |
| Second payment due from AYH under the Deed. | |
| BB PLC and PT BB gave Notice of Arbitration. | |
| Arbitration hearing took place. | |
| Agreement entered into between BB PLC, PT BB, and PTX. | |
| Award issued in the Arbitration. | |
| Decision clarifying the Award was issued. | |
| High Court heard three applications related to the Award. | |
| Judgment issued dismissing the application to set aside the Award. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Natural Justice
- Outcome: The court found no breach of natural justice.
- Category: Procedural
- Scope of Submission to Arbitration
- Outcome: The court found that the award did not deal with matters outside the scope of submission to arbitration.
- Category: Procedural
- Common Mistake
- Outcome: The tribunal found that there was no common mistake that rendered the Deed void.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2003] QB 679
8. Remedies Sought
- Specific Performance
- Monetary Damages
- Declaration that the Deed was void
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Specific Performance
10. Practice Areas
- Arbitration
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Mining
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] QB 679 | England and Wales | Cited for the test to determine common mistake that renders a contract void, specifically the requirement of impossibility of performance. |
| PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SA | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 597 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a court must undertake a two-stage inquiry to determine whether an arbitral award ought to be set aside under Art 34(2)(a)(iii). |
| PT Prima International Development v Kempinski Hotels SA and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 98 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a new fact arising after submission to arbitration, which would affect the remedies recoverable in the proceedings must fall within the scope of the parties’ submission to arbitration and, therefore, need not be specifically pleaded. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| SIAC Rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 | Not Specified |
| International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Deed
- Arbitration
- Potential Claims
- Exceptional Costs Table
- August 2014 Agreement
- Common Mistake
- PTX
- BB PLC
- PT BB
- Self-Executing Release
15.2 Keywords
- arbitration
- contract
- common mistake
- setting aside
- natural justice
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
17. Areas of Law
- Arbitration Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure