CHH v CHI: Setting Aside Arbitration Award for Stone Supply Dispute
In CHH v CHI, the Singapore High Court addressed an application to set aside parts of a Final Award in an ICC arbitration. The Respondent, CHH, sought to set aside the award under s 48 of the Arbitration Act, arguing that the arbitrator exceeded the scope of submission and breached natural justice. The dispute arose from a construction subcontract where the Claimant, CHI, sought further payment for supplied stones rejected by the architect. The court dismissed the setting-aside application, finding no excess of jurisdiction or breach of natural justice, but granted the Respondent's application for sealing and redaction.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Respondent’s application for sealing and redaction granted, but the Respondent’s setting-aside application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Arbitration
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court judgment on setting aside an arbitration award concerning a stone supply contract, focusing on whether the arbitrator exceeded their scope.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHH | Respondent | Corporation | Application for sealing and redaction granted, Setting-aside application dismissed | Won, Lost | Nandakumar Ponniya, Servai, Wong Tjen Wee, Jeunhsien Daniel Ho, Singh Kartik |
| CHI | Claimant | Corporation | Setting-aside application dismissed | Won | Goh Phai Cheng |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andre Maniam | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Nandakumar Ponniya | Wong & Leow LLC |
| Servai | Wong & Leow LLC |
| Wong Tjen Wee | Wong & Leow LLC |
| Jeunhsien Daniel Ho | Wong & Leow LLC |
| Singh Kartik | Wong & Leow LLC |
| Goh Phai Cheng | Goh Phai Cheng LLC |
4. Facts
- The Respondent was the main contractor for a construction project.
- The Claimant was a subcontractor for the design, supply, and installation of stone and tile.
- The Subcontract Works included the supply and installation of two types of marble – Statuario stones and Statuario Venato stones.
- The architect and/or the Respondent rejected all the S Stones and most of the SV Stones supplied by the Claimant.
- The Claimant commenced arbitration under the ICC Rules seeking further payment from the Respondent.
- The arbitrator found that the stones supplied by the Claimant met the Acceptance Criteria and should not have been rejected.
- The arbitrator awarded the Claimant the outstanding balance of the Subcontract Price and the first half of the retention monies.
5. Formal Citations
- CHH v CHI, Originating Summons No 470 of 2020 and Summons No 2004 of 2020, [2020] SGHC 269
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Final Award dated | |
| Addendum to Final Award dated | |
| Affidavit of the Respondent’s Mr. [Z] dated | |
| Claimant submitted payment claim number 29 | |
| Respondent issued payment response number 29 | |
| Mr [S]'s affidavit dated | |
| Hearing date | |
| Hearing date | |
| Hearing date | |
| Hearing date | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Interest start date for item V | |
| Interest start date for item VI | |
| Dry lay of the S Stones | |
| Dry lay of the S Stones | |
| Dry lay of the S Stones | |
| Dry lay of the S Stones | |
| Respondent served a request for correction and clarification | |
| Claimant opposed request for correction and clarification | |
| Respondent replied to say that it wished to respond with necessary clarifications |
7. Legal Issues
- Excess of Jurisdiction
- Outcome: The court found that even if the arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction, the impugned reasons could be separated from other reasons, and declined to set aside the award.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Related Cases:
- [2011] 4 SLR 305
- [2018] 4 SLR 271
- Breach of Natural Justice
- Outcome: The court found that the Respondent did not suffer actual or real prejudice, and declined to set aside the award.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2007] 3 SLR(R) 86
- [2013] 1 SLR 125
- Compliance with Acceptance Criteria
- Outcome: The court upheld the arbitrator's finding that the stones complied with the Acceptance Criteria and were wrongly rejected.
- Category: Substantive
- Confidentiality in Arbitration
- Outcome: The court held that the ICC Rules are neutral as to confidentiality and do not displace the general obligation of confidentiality in Singapore-seated arbitrations.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2011] 1 SLR 1093
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside of arbitration award
- Monetary compensation
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Arbitration
- Commercial Litigation
- Construction Disputes
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Soh Beng Tee & Co Pte Ltd v Fairmount Development Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 86 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a breach of natural justice must cause actual or real prejudice to the party seeking to set aside an award. |
| L W Infrastructure Pte Ltd v Lim Chin San Contractors Pte Ltd and another appeal | N/A | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 125 | Singapore | Cited to explain that prejudice arises if the arbitrator was denied the benefit of material that could reasonably have made a difference to the arbitrator. |
| CRW Joint Operation v PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero) TBK | N/A | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 305 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a court retains discretion not to set aside an award even if grounds for setting aside are made out. |
| Coal & Oil Co LLC v GHCL Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2015] 3 SLR 154 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that if there is no actual or real prejudice, the court might decline to set aside the award. |
| Triulzi Cesare SLR v Xinyi Group (Glass) Co Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 114 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that if there is no actual or real prejudice, the court might decline to set aside the award. |
| GD Midea Air Conditioning Equipment Co Ltd v Tornado Consumer Goods Ltd and another matter | N/A | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 271 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that no actual or real prejudice needed to be shown for an award to be set aside on the ground of excess of jurisdiction. |
| AAY v AAZ | N/A | Yes | [2011] 1 SLR 1093 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the obligation of confidentiality in arbitration will apply as a default to arbitrations where the parties have not specified expressly the private and/or confidential nature of the arbitration. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Arbitration
- Setting aside
- Acceptance Criteria
- Stone Inspector
- ICC Rules
- Subcontract
- Retention monies
- Natural justice
- Excess of jurisdiction
- Confidentiality
15.2 Keywords
- arbitration
- construction
- stone supply
- setting aside
- Singapore High Court
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- Construction Dispute
- Contract Law
17. Areas of Law
- Arbitration Law
- Construction Law
- Contract Law