Quanzhou Sanhong Trading v ADM Asia-Pacific: Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Award & Tribunal Jurisdiction
In Quanzhou Sanhong Trading Limited Liability Co Ltd v ADM Asia-Pacific Trading Pte Ltd, the Singapore High Court dismissed the defendant's appeal against the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award. The court held that the arbitral tribunal in Beijing did not exceed its jurisdiction by determining that the contract was governed by the law of the People’s Republic of China. The court ordered the defendant to pay costs.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Arbitration
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court enforces a foreign arbitral award, holding that the arbitral tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction by determining the contract's governing law.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quanzhou Sanhong Trading Limited Liability Co Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | |
| ADM Asia-Pacific Trading Pte Ltd | Defendant, Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chua Lee Ming | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract to purchase corn.
- A dispute arose between the parties in relation to the quality of the corn.
- The dispute was referred to arbitration in Beijing, People’s Republic of China.
- The arbitral tribunal rendered its award requiring the defendant to pay the plaintiff US$772,957.41 and RMB4,223,702.69 together with interest.
- The plaintiff obtained an order of court granting it leave to enforce the Award against the defendant.
- The defendant filed Summons No 5409 of 2016 seeking to set aside the Enforcement Order.
- The Beijing Intermediate People’s Court dismissed the defendant’s application to set aside the Award.
5. Formal Citations
- Quanzhou Sanhong Trading Limited Liability Co Ltd v ADM Asia-Pacific Trading Pte Ltd, Originating Summons No 1057 of 2016(Registrar’s Appeal No 78 of 2017), [2017] SGHC 199
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Contract entered into by plaintiff and defendant to purchase corn. | |
| Arbitral tribunal rendered its award. | |
| Plaintiff obtained an order of court granting it leave to enforce the Award against the defendant. | |
| Enforcement Order was served on the defendant. | |
| Defendant filed Summons No 5409 of 2016 seeking to set aside the Enforcement Order. | |
| Beijing Intermediate People’s Court dismissed the defendant’s application to set aside the Award. | |
| The AR dismissed the defendant’s application to set aside the Enforcement Order. | |
| Defendant filed a notice of appeal against the whole of the AR’s decision in SUM 5409/2016. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Judgment date. |
7. Legal Issues
- Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal
- Outcome: The court held that the arbitral tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction by making an error as to the governing law of the contract.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Error as to governing law
- Related Cases:
- [2011] 4 SLR 305
- [2010] 3 SLR 1
- [2012] 4 SLR 1057
- Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Award
- Outcome: The court held that enforcing the award would not be contrary to the public policy of Singapore.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Enforcement of Arbitral Award
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Arbitration
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Commodities Trading
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CRW Joint Operation v PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero) TBK | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 305 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that errors of law or fact are not sufficient to warrant setting aside an arbitral award under Art 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Model Law. |
| Sui Southern Gas Co Ltd v Habibullah Coastal Power Co (Pte) Ltd | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 3 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that if an issue is firmly within the scope of submission to arbitration, it cannot be taken outside the scope of submission to arbitration simply because the arbitral tribunal came to a wrong conclusion on it. |
| Quarella SpA v Scelta Marble Australia Pty Ltd | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 1057 | Singapore | Cited for the rejection of the submission that an arbitral tribunal’s error in respect of the governing law would cause it to exceed its jurisdiction. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 31(2)(d) of the International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 31(4)(b) of the International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Arbitral Award
- Enforcement Order
- Governing Law
- Jurisdiction
- International Arbitration Act
- UNCITRAL Model Law
- Public Policy
15.2 Keywords
- arbitration
- enforcement
- foreign award
- jurisdiction
- governing law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards | 95 |
| Arbitration | 90 |
| Jurisdiction | 70 |
| Contract Law | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards
- Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunals