CJY v CJZ: Stay of Court Proceedings Pending Arbitration Over Wrongful Performance Bond Calls and Construction Defects

In CJY v CJZ, the Singapore High Court addressed whether a contractor should be allowed to pursue court proceedings against the employer's head of finance, quantity surveyors, and architects while arbitration was underway between the contractor (CJY) and the employer (CJZ and others) regarding issues in dispute. The court upheld the Registrar's decision to grant a stay of the court proceedings pending the arbitration's determination, emphasizing the overlap in parties, issues, and remedies between the two proceedings. The court found that the issues in the suit, including the wrongful calls on performance bonds and responsibility for construction defects, were also central to the arbitration. The court concluded that allowing the suit to proceed in parallel with the arbitration would be inefficient and unfair, and that the arbitration should be resolved first.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Case management stay granted, suit stayed pending the determination of the arbitration.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court case regarding a stay of court proceedings pending arbitration between a contractor and employer over wrongful calls on performance bonds.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
CJYPlaintiffCorporationSuit stayed pending arbitrationStayed
CJZDefendantIndividualStay grantedWon
OthersDefendantCorporationStay grantedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Andre ManiamJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

4. Facts

  1. A construction company (plaintiff) was engaged for a construction project.
  2. The contract between the plaintiff and the employer provided for disputes to be resolved in arbitration.
  3. The employer obtained three performance bonds in connection with the project.
  4. The architects issued a schedule of defects to the plaintiff.
  5. The employer called on the performance bonds and received payment.
  6. The plaintiff commenced arbitration against the employer, asserting that the calls were wrongful.
  7. The plaintiff commenced a suit against the employer's head of finance, quantity surveyors, and architects, alleging bad faith and collusion.

5. Formal Citations

  1. CJY v CJZ and others, Suit No 990 of 2020 (Registrar’s Appeal No 11 of 2021), [2021] SGHC 69

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Architects issued a schedule of defects to the plaintiff.
Employer called on the Performance Bonds.
Architect issued an architect’s direction to which the schedule of defects was appended.
Plaintiff commenced arbitration against the Employer.
Settlement was reached between the plaintiff and the Employer and the appeal was withdrawn.
Plaintiff filed its Statement of Case in the Arbitration.
Employer filed its Defence and Counterclaim in the Arbitration.
Plaintiff filed its Reply and Defence to Counterclaim in the Arbitration.
Plaintiff commenced the suit against the defendants.
Arguments heard.
Plaintiff filed Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Judgment delivered.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Stay of Court Proceedings
    • Outcome: The court granted a stay of the court proceedings pending the determination of the arbitration.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2016] 1 SLR 373
      • [2019] 2 SLR 682
  2. Wrongful Calls on Performance Bonds
    • Outcome: The court did not make a determination on whether the calls were wrongful, as that issue was to be decided in arbitration.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Confidentiality in Arbitration
    • Outcome: The court held that the obligation of confidentiality in relation to arbitrations is not absolute and that disclosure is permissible where it is reasonably necessary or where it is in the interests of justice.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2003] 2 SLR(R) 547
      • [2008] 2 All ER (Comm) 193
      • [2011] 1 SLR 1093

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages to be assessed
  2. Interest
  3. Costs
  4. Further or other relief

9. Cause of Actions

  • Conspiracy
  • Breach of duties
  • Deceit
  • Unlawful interference with trade and/or contractual relations

10. Practice Areas

  • Arbitration
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Construction Law

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Tomolugen Holdings Ltd and another v Silica Investors Ltd and other appealsCourt of AppealYes[2016] 1 SLR 373SingaporeCited for the principle that the court may exercise its case management powers to ensure the efficient and fair resolution of a dispute where there are overlapping court and arbitration proceedings.
Rex International Holding Ltd and another v Gulf Hibiscus LtdCourt of AppealYes[2019] 2 SLR 682SingaporeCited for the principle that the court will consider the extent and nature of overlap between the arbitration and the suit, in terms of the parties, the issues, and the remedies.
Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck and othersN/AYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 453SingaporeCited for the principle that a party cannot procure an outcome from the court that is opposite to a final and binding arbitration award against that party; doing so would be an impermissible collateral attack on the arbitration award and an abuse of process.
Lim Geok Lin Andy v Yap Jin Meng Bryan and another appealN/AYes[2017] 2 SLR 760SingaporeCited for the principle that a party cannot procure an outcome from the court that is opposite to a final and binding arbitration award against that party; doing so would be an impermissible collateral attack on the arbitration award and an abuse of process.
Ong Han Nam v Borneo Ventures Pte LtdSingapore Court of AppealYes[2021] SGCA 21SingaporeCited for the principle that a party cannot procure an outcome from the court that is opposite to a final and binding arbitration award against that party; doing so would be an impermissible collateral attack on the arbitration award and an abuse of process.
Myanma Yaung Chi Oo Co Ltd v Win Win Nu and anotherN/AYes[2003] 2 SLR(R) 547SingaporeCited for the principle that the obligation of confidentiality in relation to arbitrations is not an absolute one and that disclosure is permissible where it is reasonably necessary or where it is in the interests of justice.
John Forster Emmott v Michael Wilson & Partners LtdN/AYes[2008] 2 All ER (Comm) 193N/ACited for the principle that the obligation of confidentiality in relation to arbitrations is not an absolute one and that disclosure is permissible where it is reasonably necessary for the protection of the legitimate interests of an arbitration party or where the interests of justice require disclosure.
AAY and others v AAZN/AYes[2011] 1 SLR 1093SingaporeCited for the principle that the obligation of confidentiality in relation to arbitrations is not an absolute one and that disclosure is permissible where it is reasonably necessary for the protection of the legitimate interests of an arbitration party or where the interests of justice require disclosure.
Tan Woo Thian v PricewaterhouseCoopers Advisory Services Pte LtdSingapore Court of AppealYes[2021] SGCA 20SingaporeCited for the principle that liability cannot be determined in the plaintiff’s favour without a determination that the plaintiff has suffered damage.
CKR Contract Services Pte Ltd v Asplenium Land Pte LtdN/AYes[2020] 5 SLR 665SingaporeCited as an example where a stay of court proceedings pending the outcome of arbitration was granted.

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
  • Stay of proceedings
  • Performance bond
  • Schedule of defects
  • Wrongful calls
  • Case management stay
  • Confidentiality
  • Rectification costs

15.2 Keywords

  • arbitration
  • stay of proceedings
  • performance bond
  • construction
  • Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Arbitration95
Performance Bond80
Stay of Proceedings80
Construction Law70
Building and Construction Contracts60
Contract Law60
Construction60
Breach of Contract60
Commercial Disputes50
Civil Procedure40
Force Majeure30
Frustration30
Costs30
Res Judicata30
Discovery30
International Commercial Law30
Interpretation30
Anticipatory Breach30
Specific performance30
Damages30
Forum conveniens30
Interlocutory injunction30
Judicial comity30
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act30
Personal Injury30
Performance of Contract30
Variation30
Interest30
Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act30
Construction of Contract30
Extension of time and liquidated damages30
Delay in completion30
Failure to complete30
Scope of work30
Variations30
Back charges30
Interpretation of Contract30
Delay30
Building and Construction Related Contracts30
Collateral Warranties30
Construction of Contracts30
Building and Construction Law30
Breach of Contractual Warranties30
Contractual Duties30
Breach of Contractual Terms30
Breach of Express Warranties30
Exclusion Clauses30
Interpretation of Contracts30
Economic Duress30
Entire Agreement Clause30
Wrongful Termination of Contract30
Progress Payment Claims30
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 200430
Collateral Contract30
Offer and Acceptance30
Repudiatory breach30
Contracts for sale and supply of goods30
Best effort obligations30
Obligations imposed30
Non-acceptance of goods30
Shipbuilding Contracts30
Conditions Precedent30
Unilateral Offer30
Non-joinder30
Construction of statute30
Purposive approach30
Inducing Breach of Contract30
Scope of agreement30
Common Law Rectification30
Equitable Rectification30
Party Autonomy30
Pay when paid provisions30
Jurisdiction30
Duty of Candour30
Summary Judgement30
Crossclaims30
Disclosure of documents30
Peremptory orders30
Illegality and public policy30
Estoppel30
Remedies30

16. Subjects

  • Arbitration
  • Construction Dispute
  • Civil Procedure