Ng Tze Chew Diana v Aikco Construction: Appeal Out of Time & Extension of Time for Arbitration Award

Ng Tze Chew Diana (Applicant) applied to the High Court of Singapore for leave to appeal an arbitral award against Aikco Construction Pte Ltd (Respondent) concerning a construction contract dispute. The application was filed almost ten months after the award date, exceeding the statutory time limit. Ang Cheng Hock J dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to justify the delay and the intended appeal had little prospect of success.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Originating Summons dismissed in its entirety.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Application for leave to appeal an arbitration award was filed out of time. The court considered whether to grant an extension of time.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Ng Tze Chew DianaApplicantIndividualApplication DismissedLost
Aikco Construction Pte LtdRespondentCorporationApplication DismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Ang Cheng HockJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Koh Choon Guan DanielEldan Law LLP
Lim KhoonEldan Law LLP
Ang MinghaoEldan Law LLP
Por Hock Sing MichaelMichael Por Law Corporation
Li JiaxinMichael Por Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. Applicant hired Respondent for construction of a two-storey semi-detached house.
  2. Construction did not go smoothly; completion certificate issued on 2011-03-08, past the stipulated date.
  3. Applicant alleged numerous defects requiring rectification after completion.
  4. Applicant commenced arbitration proceedings against Respondent for delay and defects.
  5. Respondent counterclaimed for outstanding sums and additional labor costs.
  6. Arbitrator awarded Applicant a small portion of claims and allowed Respondent's counterclaim.
  7. Applicant sought leave to appeal the arbitral award, filing the application out of time.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Ng Tze Chew Diana v Aikco Construction Pte Ltd, Originating Summons No 730 of 2018, [2019] SGHC 259

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Contractually stipulated completion date
Actual completion date
Completion certificate issued
Maintenance period ends
Respondent continues rectification works
Applicant commenced arbitration proceedings
Respondent's counsel wrote to the arbitrator about financial difficulties
Conference with the arbitrator
Respondent informed the arbitrator it would try to sell office premises
Arbitrator informed parties award would be ready for collection from 2017-07-25
Date of the arbitral award
Applicant proposed arbitrator release award if she paid her share
Conference with arbitrator; applicant's counsel indicated applicant would consider paying balance of fees
Respondent completed sale of premises
Arbitrator released the award to the parties
Applicant commenced proceedings seeking leave to appeal
Respondent made payment of its share of outstanding fees
Hearing date
Hearing date
Hearing date
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Extension of Time to Appeal Arbitration Award
    • Outcome: The court declined to grant an extension of time, finding the delay unjustified and the prospects of success hopeless.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Length of delay
      • Reasons for delay
      • Prospects of success
      • Prejudice to the respondent
  2. Leave to Appeal Arbitration Award
    • Outcome: The court found that the questions raised by the applicant did not meet the requirements for leave to appeal.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Question of law
      • Substantial effect on rights
      • Question arbitrator was asked to determine
      • Decision obviously wrong or of public importance
      • Just and proper for court to determine

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Leave to Appeal Arbitral Award
  2. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Delay in Completion
  • Defective Works

10. Practice Areas

  • Arbitration
  • Construction Disputes
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Hong Huat Development Co (Pte) Ltd v Hiap Hong & Co Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2000] 1 SLR(R) 510SingaporeCited for the principle that time for appeal runs from notification of award readiness, not actual receipt, and for factors in granting extension of time.
Pearson Judith Rosemary v Chen Chien Wen EdwinN/AYes[1991] 2 SLR(R) 260SingaporeCited for the factors to be considered in deciding whether an extension of time ought to be granted.
Tay Eng Chuan v United Overseas Insurance LtdN/AYes[2009] 4 SLR(R) 1043SingaporeCited for the factors to be considered in deciding whether an extension of time ought to be granted.
Progen Engineering Pte Ltd v Winter Engineering (S) Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2006] SGHC 224SingaporeCited to show that a delay of 49 days past the statutory time limit is very substantial.
Squibb Group Limited v Pole 2 Pole Scaffolding LimitedN/AYes[2017] EWHC 2394 (TCC)England and WalesCited to show that a delay of 84 days was described as a substantial delay.
Terna Bahrain Holding Company WLL v Ali Marzook Ali bin Kamil Al Shamsi and othersN/AYes[2012] EWHC 3283 (Comm)England and WalesCited as an example of a case involving a delay of almost 17 weeks.
Ian Rollitt (trading as CD Consult) v Christopher Leonard BallardN/AYes[2017] EWHC 1500 (TCC)England and WalesCited as an example of a case involving a delay of 88 days.
S v A and BN/AYes[2016] EWHC 846 (Comm)England and WalesCited as an example of a case involving a delay of 74 days.
Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic PartyN/AYes[2008] 1 SLR(R) 757SingaporeCited for the principle that the emphasis is on the length of delay and the reasons for the delay.
Northern Elevator Manufacturing Sdn Bhd v United Engineers (Singapore) Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2004] 2 SLR(R) 494SingaporeCited for the distinction between a question of law and an error of law.
Ng Eng Ghee and others v Mamata Kapildev Dave and others (Horizon Partners Pte Ltd, intervener) and another appealN/AYes[2009] 3 SLR(R) 109SingaporeCited to re-emphasise that Northern Elevator represents the approach towards questions of law in arbitration cases.
Progen Engineering Pte Ltd v Chua Aik Kia (trading as Uni Sanitary Electrical Construction)N/AYes[2006] 4 SLR(R) 419SingaporeCited for the principle that the arbitrator’s findings of facts are conclusive.
Pioneer Shipping Pte Ltd v BTP Tioxide LtdN/AYes[1980] QB 547England and WalesCited for the principle that the phrase ‘substantially affect the rights’ meant that the point of law must be a ‘point of practical importance – not an academic point – nor a minor point’.
Lim Chin San Contractors Pte Ltd v LW Infrastructure Pte LtdN/AYes[2011] 4 SLR 455SingaporeCited for the principle that the scope of the question which the arbitrator was asked to determine is not limited to the pleaded issues before the arbitrator.
Engineering Construction Pte Ltd v Sanchoon Builders Pte LtdN/AYes[2011] 1 SLR 681SingaporeCited for the principle that the applicable disjunctive limb depends on whether the question of law raised is a “one-off” point, or a point of “general public importance”.
CMA CGM SA v Beteiligungs-KG MS “Northern Pioneer” Schiffahrtsgesellschaft mbH & CoN/AYes[2003] 1WLR 1015England and WalesCited for the principle that where a question of general public importance is raised, the door has been opened “a little more widely to the granting of permission to appeal than the crack that was left open” in The Nema.
Prestige Marine Services Pte Ltd v Marubeni International Petroleum (S) Pte LtdN/AYes[2012] 1 SLR 917SingaporeCited for the principle that even if the other conditions above are met, leave to appeal against an award will only be granted if the court is satisfied that “despite the agreement of the parties to resolve the matter by arbitration, it is just and proper in all the circumstances for the Court to determine the question” of law posed.
International Petroleum Refining & Supply Sdad Ltd v Elpis Finance S.A.N/AYes[1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 408N/ACited for the principle that it is not open to a party to argue that they were waiting for the other party to take up the award.
PPG Industries (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Compact Metal Industries LtdCourt of AppealYes[2013] SGCA 23SingaporeCited for the principle that the opinions of experts “will always remain as opinions and do not bind the court concerned.”
Sunny Metal & Engineering Pte Ltd v Ng Khim Ming EricN/AYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 782SingaporeCited for the proposition that remoteness limits the defendant’s liability if the plaintiff’s loss was not reasonably foreseeable.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 2002 Rev Ed)Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Arbitration Award
  • Extension of Time
  • Leave to Appeal
  • Delay Certificate
  • Liquidated Damages
  • Defective Works
  • Mitigation of Loss
  • Remoteness of Damage

15.2 Keywords

  • arbitration
  • construction
  • appeal
  • extension of time
  • award
  • delay
  • defects

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Arbitration95
Contract Law60
Construction Law50
Extension of Time40
Damages40
Evidence Law30

16. Subjects

  • Arbitration
  • Construction Law
  • Civil Procedure