CIM v CIN: Setting Aside Arbitration Award for Non-Delivery of Clinker

In CIM v CIN, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore heard an originating summons by CIM to set aside an arbitration award in favor of CIN regarding a long-term clinker supply contract. CIM challenged the award on grounds of natural justice and jurisdiction, arguing that the tribunal's findings on cooperation and damages were unpleaded and unanticipated. Justice Philip Jeyaretnam dismissed the summons, finding that the tribunal's reasoning was within the scope of the arbitration and that CIM had adequate notice of the case against it.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Originating summons dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Arbitration

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court dismisses CIM's application to set aside an arbitration award, finding no breach of natural justice or jurisdictional issues in the tribunal's decision regarding a clinker supply contract.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
CIMPlaintiffCorporationOriginating summons dismissedLostNakul Dewan SA, Loong Tse Chuan, Lim Wei Shen Mark
CINDefendantCorporationOriginating summons dismissedWonSiraj Omar SC, Allister Brendan Tan Yu Kuan, Cheng Hiu Lam Larisa, Joelle Tan

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Philip JeyaretnamJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Nakul Dewan SAAllen & Gledhill LLP
Loong Tse ChuanAllen & Gledhill LLP
Lim Wei Shen MarkAllen & Gledhill LLP
Siraj Omar SCDrew & Napier LLC
Allister Brendan Tan Yu KuanDrew & Napier LLC
Cheng Hiu Lam LarisaDrew & Napier LLC
Joelle TanDrew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

  1. CIM and CIN had a long-term contract for the supply of clinker at a fixed price.
  2. The contract specified the quantity of clinker, approximate shipment sizes, and the total period for delivery.
  3. Five shipments were made and paid for, leaving almost half of the contracted quantity undelivered.
  4. CIM contended that agreeing on a laycan and CIN nominating a vessel were conditions precedent for each shipment.
  5. CIN claimed CIM was liable for non-delivery of the remaining clinker, seeking damages under the Sale of Goods Act.
  6. CIN argued that CIM was unwilling to deliver due to unfavorable price changes, preventing agreement on laycans.
  7. The Tribunal accepted CIN’s case that CIM would not supply at the contracted price, and so would not agree laycans.

5. Formal Citations

  1. CIM v CIN, Originating Summons No 1184 of 2020, [2021] SGHC 75

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Award issued by the Tribunal
Originating Summons No 1184 of 2020 filed
Written submissions by Plaintiff and Defendant
Hearing
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Natural Justice
    • Outcome: The court found no breach of natural justice.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Deprivation of opportunity to present case
      • Failure to consider pleaded case
  2. Jurisdictional Challenge
    • Outcome: The court found that the tribunal's decision was within the scope of the submission to arbitration.
    • Category: Jurisdictional
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Decision beyond the scope of submission to arbitration
  3. Prevention Principle
    • Outcome: The court found that CIM could not rely on the non-fulfilment of the condition precedent, because it caused that non-fulfilment by failing to cooperate with CIN.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Party relying on its own failures
      • Implied duty to cooperate

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Setting aside of arbitration award

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Arbitration
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Construction
  • Shipping

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Government of the Republic of the Philippines v Philippine International Air Terminals Co, IncCourt of AppealYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 278SingaporeCited regarding the right to present one’s case as an aspect of natural justice.
Soh Beng Tee & Co Pte Ltd v Fairmount Development Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 86SingaporeCited for the framework to determine breach of natural justice in setting aside an award.
JVL Agro Industries Ltd v Agritrade International Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2016] 4 SLR 768SingaporeCited for the principle that a reasonable party should have foreseen the tribunal’s chain of reasoning.
Kempinski Hotels SA v PT Prima International DevelopmentHigh CourtYes[2011] 4 SLR 633SingaporeCited for the principle that an arbitrator must be guided by the pleadings.
Glaziers Engineering Pte Ltd v WCS Engineering Construction Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2018] 2 SLR 1311SingaporeCited for guidance on what an arbitrator should do when faced with a departure from pleadings.
China Machine New Energy Corp v Jaguar Energy Guatemala LLC and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2020] 1 SLR 695SingaporeCited for the principles applicable to a natural justice challenge.
Mackay v DickHouse of LordsYes(1881) 6 App Cas 251United KingdomCited for the principle that a party cannot rely on non-fulfilment of a condition precedent that it has itself caused.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Sale of Goods Act 1979 (c 54) (UK)United Kingdom
International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Arbitration
  • Clinker
  • Laycan
  • Condition Precedent
  • Prevention Principle
  • Natural Justice
  • Jurisdictional Challenge
  • UNCITRAL Model Law
  • International Arbitration Act
  • Good Faith
  • Waiver

15.2 Keywords

  • arbitration
  • setting aside
  • clinker
  • non-delivery
  • natural justice
  • jurisdiction
  • prevention principle

16. Subjects

  • Arbitration
  • Contract Law
  • International Trade

17. Areas of Law

  • Arbitration Law
  • Contract Law
  • International Arbitration