CKH v CKG: Appeal on Arbitral Tribunal Jurisdiction and Award Remission under UNCITRAL Model Law

In CKH v CKG, the Court of Appeal of Singapore addressed an appeal concerning the scope of remission under the UNCITRAL Model Law following an arbitration award. The court upheld the International Judge's decision, which limited the arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction on remission to specific matters outlined in the order. The appeal was dismissed, with the court finding no merit in the appellant's arguments to expand the scope of the remission beyond the defined terms.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Arbitration

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding the scope of remission under the UNCITRAL Model Law. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the judge's decision on the tribunal's limited jurisdiction.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
CKHAppellant, DefendantOtherAppeal DismissedLost
CKGRespondent, PlaintiffOtherAppeal AllowedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonChief JusticeNo
Judith PrakashJustice of the Court of AppealNo
Jonathan Hugh ManceInternational JudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Toh Wei YiHarry Elias Partnership LLP
Poon Pui YeeHarry Elias Partnership LLP
Hee Theng FongHarry Elias Partnership LLP
Leong Shan Wei JaclynHarry Elias Partnership LLP
Victor Yao LidaCavenagh Law LLP
Tan Beng Hwee PaulCavenagh Law LLP

4. Facts

  1. An arbitration led to a Final Arbitral Award dated 21 August 2020, corrected by two later Memoranda of Corrections.
  2. Previous proceedings to set aside the Award reached this court in CKH v CKG [2022] SGCA(I) 4.
  3. The court upheld the Judge’s decision that the Award failed to take into account the existence and quantum of a debt.
  4. The Judge exercised the power under Article 34(4) of the Model Law to suspend proceedings to set aside the Award.
  5. The Judge ordered that the Remitted Matters shall be remitted to the Tribunal on the Terms of Reference set out in Annex A.
  6. CKH claimed to raise a number of points relating to the Principal Debt and interest which CKG contended fell outside the scope of the remission ordered.

5. Formal Citations

  1. CKH v CKG, Civil Appeal No 1 of 2022, [2022] SGCA(I) 6

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Final Arbitral Award issued
First Memorandum of Corrections issued
Second Memorandum of Corrections issued
Originating Summons No 3 of 2021 filed
BANI arbitration commenced
Judgment reserved
Judgment delivered

7. Legal Issues

  1. Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal
    • Outcome: The court held that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is only revived “to the extent of” the remission ordered.
    • Category: Jurisdictional
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Scope of remission
      • Re-opening of subject matter
  2. Recourse Against Arbitral Award
    • Outcome: The court determined the scope of the remission is defined by the terms of the order ordering remission.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Setting aside award
      • Remission of award

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Setting aside of arbitral award
  2. Remission of arbitral award

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Arbitration
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
CKH v CKG and another matterCourt of AppealYes[2022] SGCA(I) 4SingaporeUpheld the Judge’s decision that the Award as corrected failed to take into account the existence and quantum of a debt and interest owing by the present appellant to the present respondent.
Soh Beng Tee & Co Pte Ltd v Fairmount Development Pte LtdN/AYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 86SingaporeCited for the principle that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is only revived “to the extent of” the remission ordered.
L W Infrastructure Pte Ltd v Lim Chin San Contractors Pte LtdN/AYes[2014] 1 SLR 1221SingaporeCited for the principle that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is only revived “to the extent of” the remission ordered.
AKN and another v ALC and others and other appealsN/AYes[2016] 1 SLR 966SingaporeCited for the principle that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is only revived “to the extent of” the remission ordered.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • UNCITRAL Model Law
  • Remission
  • Arbitral Tribunal
  • Jurisdiction
  • Principal Debt
  • Final Arbitral Award
  • Terms of Reference

15.2 Keywords

  • Arbitration
  • Remission
  • Jurisdiction
  • Singapore
  • International Commercial Arbitration

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Arbitration95
International Arbitration90
Recourse against award90
Remission70
Jurisdiction60
Judgments and Orders50

16. Subjects

  • Arbitration
  • International Trade Law