Prometheus Marine v King: Setting Aside Arbitral Award for Yacht Defects
In Prometheus Marine Pte Ltd v Ann Rita King, the Singapore High Court dismissed Prometheus Marine's application to set aside an arbitral award in favor of Ann Rita King. The dispute arose from the sale and purchase of a yacht, where King claimed damages for breach of contract due to defects. Prometheus Marine challenged the arbitrator's jurisdiction and alleged errors in the award. The High Court found no grounds to set aside the award, upholding the arbitrator's decision.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Applications dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court dismisses Prometheus Marine's application to set aside an arbitral award, finding no jurisdictional errors or bias in a yacht defect dispute.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prometheus Marine Pte Ltd | Plaintiff, Respondent | Corporation | Applications dismissed | Lost | |
| Ann Rita King | Defendant, Claimant | Individual | Applications dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Kannan Ramesh | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Prometheus Marine and Ann Rita King entered into a contract for the sale of a Clipper Cordova 60 yacht.
- The yacht was damaged during preparation for shipment in China.
- King claimed the yacht did not conform to the contract specifications after repairs.
- King commenced arbitration proceedings against Prometheus Marine for breach of contract.
- The Arbitrator generally found in King’s favour and ordered that Prometheus Marine pay King damages and the full costs of the arbitration.
- Prometheus Marine applied to set aside the arbitral award.
5. Formal Citations
- Prometheus Marine Pte Ltd v King, Ann Rita and other matters, , [2017] SGHC 36
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Contract signed | |
| Yacht damaged in 10 June 2012 Incident | |
| Yacht delivered to Defendant | |
| Yacht taken to Phuket for assessment and repairs | |
| Proceedings commenced against Plaintiff | |
| Arbitral Award issued | |
| Applications filed seeking to set aside the Award | |
| Hearing date | |
| Hearing date | |
| Hearing date | |
| Hearing date | |
| Judgment delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Jurisdiction of Arbitrator
- Outcome: The court found that the Arbitrator did have jurisdiction over the parties to the dispute.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Related Cases:
- [2016] 5 SLR 536
- [2015] 2 SLR 972
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court upheld the Arbitrator's finding that the Plaintiff breached the Specifications Term and the New Vessel Term.
- Category: Substantive
- Setting Aside Arbitral Award
- Outcome: The court dismissed the applications to set aside the arbitral award.
- Category: Procedural
- Breach of Natural Justice
- Outcome: The court found that the Arbitrator fully considered the submissions that were made and did not breach the rules of natural justice.
- Category: Procedural
- Public Policy
- Outcome: The court found that the Award was not contrary to public policy.
- Category: Procedural
- Bias
- Outcome: The court found no evidence of actual or apparent bias on the Arbitrator’s part.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside of arbitral award
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Arbitration
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Marine Engineering
- Yacht Brokerage
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sanum Investments Ltd v Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 536 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court undertakes a de novo examination of the evidential matrix when considering a challenge that the Arbitrator did not have jurisdiction. |
| AQZ v ARA | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 972 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court undertakes a de novo examination of the evidential matrix when considering a challenge that the Arbitrator did not have jurisdiction. |
| Liu Wing Ngai (trading as Kam Wah Ultrasonic Engineering Co) v Lui Kok Wai (trading as Almac Machinery) | High Court | Yes | [1997] 1 SLR 559 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that the practice of setting a minimum price and allowing the agent to keep the difference on resale is not inconsistent with an agency relationship, but distinguished on the facts. |
| CRW Joint Operation v PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero) TBK | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 305 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that mere errors of law or even fact are insufficient to warrant a setting aside and that the crucial question in every case is whether there has been “real or actual prejudice” to the parties. |
| 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 the remit and jurisdiction of the Arbitrator are circumscribed by, inter alia, the pleadings and the Statement of Issues. |
| BLC and others v BLB and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 79 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the remit and jurisdiction of the Arbitrator are circumscribed by, inter alia, the pleadings and the Statement of Issues and the well-established principle of minimal curial intervention. |
| Coal & Oil Co LLC v GHCL Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 3 SLR 154 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where a party complains of a procedural breach, the breach “cannot be of an arid, technical, or trifling nature”, but must be “serious enough that it justifies the exercise of the court’s discretion to set aside the award”. |
| TMM Division Maritima SA de CV v Pacific Richfield Marine Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 972 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an issue need not be addressed expressly in an award but may instead be implicitly resolved. |
| AQU v AQV | High Court | Yes | [2015] SGHC 26 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that if it is clear to the arbitrator that a particular finding on a specific argument satisfactorily disposes of an issue, he need not go on to consider and reject further arguments in relation to that issue. |
| AKN and another v ALC and others and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 3 SLR 488 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the inference that the arbitrator failed to consider an important pleaded issue should only be drawn where it is “clear and virtually inescapable”. |
| PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SA | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 597 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an objection based on public policy is to be narrowly construed, and only operates where the award would shock the conscience, is clearly injurious to the public good or wholly offensive to the public, or violates the forum’s most basic notion of morality and justice. |
| AJU v AJT | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 739 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that mere errors of fact and/or law made by an arbitral tribunal are not contrary to public policy per se; instead the tribunal’s decision or decision-making process must be tainted by fraud, breach of natural justice or some other vitiating factor. |
| Sui Southern Gas Co Ltd v Habibullah Coastal Power Co (Pte) Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 3 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a merely “perverse” or “irrational” award cannot amount without more to a breach of public policy. There must be egregious circumstances, such as corruption, bribery or fraud. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Sale of Goods Act (Cap 393, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 13 of the Sale of Goods Act (Cap 393, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 14 of the Sale of Goods Act | Singapore |
| Unfair Contract Terms Act (Cap 396, 1994 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Arbitral award
- Yacht
- Breach of contract
- Jurisdiction
- Specifications Term
- New Vessel Term
- CE Category B compliance
- Natural justice
- Public policy
- Agency
- International Arbitration Act
- Arbitration Act
15.2 Keywords
- Arbitration
- Yacht
- Breach of contract
- Singapore
- Setting aside
- Defects
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- Contract Law
- Commercial Law