CKR Contract Services v Asplenium Land: Appeal on Arbitral Award under Arbitration Act

CKR Contract Services Pte Ltd sought leave to appeal an arbitral award against Asplenium Land Pte Ltd in the High Court of Singapore, dated April 27, 2020, regarding a contract dispute over the Seletar Park Residence project. The arbitration, which stemmed from Asplenium's termination of CKR's employment and subsequent call on a performance bond, resulted in an award in favor of CKR for S$6,405,536.34. CKR's application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

CKR sought leave to appeal an arbitral award related to a contract dispute with Asplenium. The court dismissed the application, upholding the award.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
CKR Contract Services Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationApplication dismissedLost
Asplenium Land Pte LtdDefendantCorporationApplication dismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Ang Cheng HockJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Lee Sien Liang JosephLVM Law Chambers LLC
Qabir Singh SandhuLVM Law Chambers LLC
Yap Pei YinLVM Law Chambers LLC
Corinne TaylorLVM Law Chambers LLC
Chuah Chee Kian ChristopherWongPartnership LLP
Kua Lay ThengWongPartnership LLP
Rachael Chong Rae-HuaWongPartnership LLP
Chain Xiao Wei EdmundWongPartnership LLP

4. Facts

  1. CKR and Asplenium entered into a contract for the development of the Seletar Park Residence project.
  2. Asplenium terminated CKR’s employment under the contract.
  3. Asplenium made a call on the performance bond for the full sum.
  4. CKR commenced arbitration against Asplenium.
  5. The arbitration proceedings were bifurcated into a liability phase and a quantum phase.
  6. Asplenium issued a Calderbank letter offering to pay CKR S$9.5 million to settle all claims.
  7. The tribunal found that CKR was liable to Asplenium but that Asplenium had been overpaid and owed CKR S$6,405,536.34.

5. Formal Citations

  1. CKR Contract Services Pte Ltd v Asplenium Land Pte Ltd, Originating Summons No 976 of 2019, [2020] SGHC 81

6. Timeline

DateEvent
CKR and Asplenium entered into a contract for the Seletar Park Residence project.
Asplenium terminated CKR’s employment under the Contract.
Asplenium made a call on the performance bond for the full sum.
CKR commenced arbitration against Asplenium.
Asplenium made a second call on the performance bond for the remaining balance of around S$1.1 million.
Partial Award 1 was issued, finding that the Contract had been validly terminated by Asplenium.
Partial Award 2 was issued, awarding Asplenium costs for the liability phase in the sum of S$4,162,000.
Asplenium issued a Calderbank letter.
Hearing for the quantum phase of the arbitration took place.
Partial Award 3 was issued.
Partial Award 4 was issued, dealing with costs related to the quantum phase.
Affidavit of Lee Sien Liang Joseph dated.
First affidavit of William Nursalim alias William Liem dated.
OS was first heard in Court, CKR indicated that it would not be proceeding with its application for leave to appeal on Question 3.
Judgment reserved.
CA 179 was dismissed in its entirety by the Court of Appeal.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Appeal of Arbitral Award
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Grounds for appeal
      • Leave to appeal
  2. Costs Following Calderbank Offer
    • Outcome: The court found that the tribunal was aware of its discretion in imposing adverse cost consequences.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Discretion of tribunal
      • Adverse costs
      • Failure to achieve better outcome
  3. Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal
    • Outcome: The court found that the tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction.
    • Category: Jurisdictional
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Assessment of monetary value of other matters
      • Impact of findings on court proceedings

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Leave to appeal arbitral award

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Arbitration
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Construction Law

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Calderbank v CalderbankEnglish Court of AppealYes[1976] Fam 93EnglandCited as the genesis of Calderbank letters, which allow for adverse costs orders against a party who rejects a settlement offer and obtains a less favorable judgment.
Cutts v HeadEnglish CourtYes[1984] Ch 290EnglandCited for accepting that a 'without prejudice save as to costs' offer could be validly considered by the Court in determining the final costs order.
Ong & Ong Pte Ltd v Fairview Developments Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2014] 2 SLR 1285SingaporeCited for providing a useful summary of the developments of Calderbank letters.
Shi Fang v Koh Pee HuatSingaporeYes[1996] 1 SLR(R) 906SingaporeCited for establishing that the Calderbank letter is an accepted part of Singapore law.
Ng Tze Chew Diana v Aikco Construction Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2019] SGHC 259SingaporeCited for summarizing the conditions that must be met before leave to appeal will be granted under section 49 of the Arbitration Act.
Holland Leedon Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v Metalform Asia Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2011] 2 SLR 1086SingaporeCited for the underlying policy of the Arbitration Act to promote finality of the arbitration process and awards.
Ng Chin Siau and others v How Kim ChuanSingaporeYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 789SingaporeCited for the policy behind the enactment of section 49 of the Act is that curial intervention in the arbitral process is to be minimised.
Polaris Shipping Co Ltd v Sinoriches Enterprises Co LtdEnglish High CourtYes[2015] EWHC 3405 (Comm)EnglandCited for the principle that the Court should read the tribunal’s reasons in a “reasonable and commercial way” and should not approach an award with a “meticulous legal eye endeavouring to pick holes, inconsistencies and faults in [the] award”.
Healthcare Supply Chain (Pte) Ltd v Roche Diagnostics Asia Pacific Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2011] 3 SLR 476SingaporeCited for the principle that an error in the application of the law is not subject to appeal under section 49 of the Arbitration Act.
Northern Elevator Manufacturing Sdn Bhd v United Engineers (Singapore) Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2004] 2 SLR(R) 494SingaporeCited for the principle that a question of law within the meaning of the Arbitration Act refers to a finding of law which the parties have disputed and that requires the guidance of the court to resolve.
Ahong Construction (S) Pte Ltd v United Boulevard Pte LtdSingaporeYes[1993] 2 SLR(R) 208SingaporeCited for defining a question of law as a point of law in controversy which has to be resolved after opposing views and arguments have been considered.
Lim Chin San Contractors Pte Ltd v LW Infrastructure Pte LtdSingaporeYes[2011] 4 SLR 455SingaporeCited to advance the proposition that whether or not the question of law is settled is irrelevant.
Progen Engineering Pte Ltd v Chua Aik Kia (trading as Uni Sanitary Electrical Construction)SingaporeYes[2006] 4 SLR(R) 419SingaporeCited for the principle that the arbitrator’s findings of fact are conclusive and that the court will not interfere in the arbitrator’s findings of fact arrived at after an assessment and evaluation of the evidence.
Permasteelisa Pacific Holdings Ltd v Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co LtdSingaporeYes[2005] 2 SLR(R) 270SingaporeCited for the court’s ability to supervise the conduct of arbitration proceedings and interfere with the outcome of those proceedings is limited.
Ng Chin Siau and others v How Kim ChuanCourt of AppealYes[2007] 4 SLR(R) 809SingaporeCited for the principle that parties having chosen to arbitrate should usually be bound by the finding of the tribunal and not that of the court.
Newland Shipping & Forwarding Ltd v Toba Trading FZCEnglish High CourtYes[2014] EWHC 864EnglandCited by CKR in its submissions for the proposition that the outcomes of both proceedings referred to in the Calderbank offer were known by the time costs fell to be decided.
Petraco (Bermuda) Ltd v Petromed International SA and anotherEnglandYes[1988] 1 WLR 896EnglandCited by CKR in its submissions for the proposition that a party should not be precluded from raising a new point of law in respect of an issue on appeal simply because the precise point was not argued before the arbitrator.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

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

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Arbitration
  • Arbitral Award
  • Calderbank Offer
  • Performance Bond
  • Leave to Appeal
  • Costs
  • Jurisdiction

15.2 Keywords

  • Arbitration
  • Contract
  • Singapore
  • Appeal
  • Construction
  • Calderbank Offer
  • Costs

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Arbitration95
Calderbank Offer80
Recourse against award75
Costs70
Contract Law60
Contractual terms40
Damages30

16. Subjects

  • Arbitration
  • Contract Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • Construction Dispute