Coal & Oil Co LLC v GHCL Ltd: Setting Aside Arbitral Award for Breach of Natural Justice

In Coal & Oil Co LLC v GHCL Ltd, the High Court of Singapore heard an application by Coal & Oil Co LLC ('C&O') to set aside an arbitral award in favor of GHCL Ltd ('GHCL'). The arbitration arose from a dispute over an agreement for C&O to supply coal to GHCL. GHCL claimed that an addendum to the agreement, which increased the price of coal, was procured through coercion. The Tribunal found in favor of GHCL. C&O sought to set aside the award, alleging breaches of agreed procedure, natural justice, and public policy, primarily arguing that the Tribunal failed to declare the arbitral proceedings closed before issuing its award and that there was inordinate delay in the release of the award. The High Court dismissed C&O's application, finding no merit in the grounds raised.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court dismissed Coal & Oil Co LLC's application to set aside an arbitral award, finding no breach of natural justice or agreed procedure by the Tribunal.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Coal & Oil Co LLCPlaintiffCorporationApplication dismissedLost
GHCL LtdDefendantCorporationJudgment for DefendantWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Steven Chong JJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Gabriel PeterGabriel Law Corporation
Chong En LaiGabriel Law Corporation
Joseph LopezJoseph Lopez LLP
Chong Li TangJoseph Lopez LLP
Khushboo Hashu ShahdadpuriJoseph Lopez LLP

4. Facts

  1. Coal & Oil Co LLC (C&O) and GHCL Limited (GHCL) entered into an agreement for C&O to supply coal to GHCL.
  2. A dispute arose regarding an addendum to the agreement that increased the price of coal.
  3. GHCL submitted the dispute to arbitration in Singapore under the 2007 SIAC Rules.
  4. The Tribunal found in favor of GHCL, holding that the addendum was vitiated by duress.
  5. C&O applied to set aside the arbitral award, alleging breaches of agreed procedure, natural justice, and public policy.
  6. The Tribunal released the Award 19 months after the parties tendered their final written submissions.
  7. The Tribunal did not declare the proceedings closed before releasing the award.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Coal & Oil Co LLC v GHCL Ltd, Originating Summons No 538 of 2014, [2015] SGHC 65

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Agreement signed to supply coal to the defendant.
Addendum agreed to for a price increase.
Third shipment loaded and paid for.
Defendant demanded repayment of the additional sum paid under the Addendum.
GHCL issued a notice of arbitration to C&O
Oral hearings conducted before the Tribunal.
Oral hearings conducted before the Tribunal.
Oral hearings conducted before the Tribunal.
Oral hearings conducted before the Tribunal.
GHCL filed its closing submissions.
C&O filed its closing submissions.
GHCL filed its reply submissions.
C&O filed its reply submissions.
The SIAC informed parties that the Tribunal was in the process of drafting the award.
The Tribunal informed the parties that a draft award was expected to be ready by the end of the month.
GHCL requested an update on the status of the award.
The SIAC informed the parties that it had yet to receive the draft award.
The SIAC informed the parties that it had received the draft award from the Tribunal.
The Award was issued.
The parties received a copy of the Award via email.
Plaintiff filed Originating Summons No 538 of 2014.
Hearing on Originating Summons No 538 of 2014.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Natural Justice
    • Outcome: The court held that there was no breach of natural justice.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to declare closure of proceedings
      • Inordinate delay in releasing award
    • Related Cases:
      • [2013] 4 SLR 972
      • [2014] 3 SLR 481
      • [2014] 4 SLR 978
      • [2015] 1 SLR 114
  2. Breach of Agreed Procedure
    • Outcome: The court held that there was no breach of agreed procedure.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to comply with SIAC Rule 27.1
  3. Conflict with Public Policy
    • Outcome: The court held that the award did not conflict with public policy.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Delay in arbitration proceedings
    • Related Cases:
      • [2007] 1 SLR(R) 597
      • [2000] 1 SLR(R) 510

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Setting aside of arbitral award
  2. Declaration that the Tribunal's mandate had been terminated

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Duress

10. Practice Areas

  • Arbitration
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Commodities Trading

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
TMM Division Maritima SA de CV v Pacific Richfield Marine Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2013] 4 SLR 972SingaporeCited for the principle that challenges to arbitral awards based on breaches of natural justice are serious and require clear errors on the face of the record.
ADG and another v ADI and another matterHigh CourtNo[2014] 3 SLR 481SingaporeCited as an example of an unsuccessful attempt to set aside an arbitral award based on an alleged breach of natural justice (tribunal's decision to close proceedings).
PT Central Investindo v Franciscus Wongso and others and another matterHigh CourtNo[2014] 4 SLR 978SingaporeCited as an example of an unsuccessful attempt to set aside an arbitral award based on an alleged breach of natural justice (dilatoriness in the release of an award).
Triulzi Cesare SRL v Xinyi Group (Glass) Co LtdHigh CourtYes[2015] 1 SLR 114SingaporeCited for the principle that the court retains a discretion not to set an award aside even if one of the prescribed grounds for setting aside has been made out.
NCC International AB v Land Transport Authority SingaporeCourt of AppealYes[2009] 1 SLR(R) 985SingaporeCited for the principle that contracts, including institutional rules of an arbitral institution, must be interpreted purposively.
AQZ v ARAHigh CourtYes[2015] SGHC 49SingaporeCited for the principle that contracts, including institutional rules of an arbitral institution, must be interpreted purposively.
CRW Joint Operation v PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero) TBKCourt of AppealYes[2011] 4 SLR 305SingaporeCited for the principle that the court retains a discretion not to set an award aside even if one of the prescribed grounds for setting aside has been made out.
Grand Pacific Holdings Ltd v Pacific China Holdings Ltd (in liq) (No 1)Court of AppealNo[2012] 4 HKLRD 1Hong KongCited for the approach taken by some jurisdictions to inquire into the 'seriousness of the breach' when considering setting aside an arbitral award.
Soh Beng Tee & Co Pte Ltd v Fairmount Development Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 86SingaporeCited for the principle that tribunals have wide powers of case management.
Ting Kang Chung John v Teo Hee Lai Building Constructions Pte LtdHigh CourtNo[2010] 2 SLR 625SingaporeCited by the plaintiff, but distinguished by the court, regarding the failure to adhere to agreed time limits for the release of an award.
PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SACourt of AppealYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 597SingaporeCited for the high threshold required to set aside an arbitral award on the grounds of public policy.
Hong Huat Development Co (Pte) Ltd v Hiap Hong & Co Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2000] 1 SLR(R) 510SingaporeCited for the principle that a significant delay in releasing an arbitral award is not, per se, a sufficient basis for setting aside the award.
LW Infrastructure Pte Ltd v Lim Chin San Contractors Pte Ltd and another appealCourt of AppealNo[2013] 1 SLR 125SingaporeCited by the plaintiff, but distinguished by the court, regarding the right to be heard before a supplemental award is issued.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
2007 Singapore International Arbitration Centre Rules
Rule 27.1 of the 2007 Singapore International Arbitration Centre Rules
Rule 21.5 of the 2007 Singapore International Arbitration Centre Rules
2010 Singapore International Arbitration Centre Rules
Rule 28.1 of the 2010 Singapore International Arbitration Centre Rules
Rule 28.2 of the 2010 Singapore International Arbitration Centre Rules
2013 Singapore International Arbitration Centre Rules
Article 3 of Schedule 1 of the 2007 Singapore International Arbitration Centre Rules
Article 3(5) of Schedule 1 of the 2007 Singapore International Arbitration Centre Rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed)Singapore
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985Singapore
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2014 Rev Ed)Singapore
Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore
Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 2002 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Arbitral award
  • Natural justice
  • SIAC Rules
  • Breach of agreed procedure
  • Public policy
  • Tribunal mandate
  • Closure of proceedings
  • Inordinate delay
  • Duress
  • UNCITRAL Model Law

15.2 Keywords

  • arbitration
  • natural justice
  • SIAC
  • setting aside
  • arbitral award
  • delay
  • procedure

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Arbitration90
International Arbitration90
Setting Aside Arbitral Award60
Natural justice50
Breach of Contract40
Contract Law40

16. Subjects

  • Arbitration
  • Breach of Natural Justice
  • Setting Aside Arbitral Award
  • International Commercial Arbitration