CVG v CVH: Enforcement of Emergency Interim Award and Interpretation of International Arbitration Act

In CVG v CVH, the High Court of Singapore addressed the defendant's application to set aside an order enforcing an Emergency Interim Award made in Pennsylvania. Chua Lee Ming J set aside the Enforcement Order, finding that while the term 'foreign award' in the International Arbitration Act includes foreign interim awards by emergency arbitrators, the Award breached s 31(2)(c) of the IAA because the defendant was unable to present its case in the arbitration proceedings. The court dismissed the claimant's application for permission to enforce the Award and ordered the claimant to pay costs to the defendant.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Defendant's application granted; Enforcement Order set aside; claimant’s application for permission to enforce the Award dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court addresses the enforceability of a foreign interim award by an emergency arbitrator, focusing on the International Arbitration Act.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
CVGClaimantCorporationApplication DismissedLostMelvin See Hsien Huei, Lavan Vickneson, Alexander Kamsany Lee
CVHDefendantCorporationApplication GrantedWonLok Vi Ming, Joseph Lee, Qabir Singh Sandhu, Law May Ning, Joshua Ho Jun Ling

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chua Lee MingJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Melvin See Hsien HueiDentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Lavan VicknesonDentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Alexander Kamsany LeeDentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Lok Vi MingLVM Law Chambers LLC
Joseph LeeLVM Law Chambers LLC
Qabir Singh SandhuLVM Law Chambers LLC
Law May NingLVM Law Chambers LLC
Joshua Ho Jun LingLVM Law Chambers LLC

4. Facts

  1. The defendant had been the claimant’s franchisee in Singapore since 1997.
  2. In June 2020, the claimant filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.
  3. On 6 May 2022, the claimant sent the defendant a notice of default.
  4. On 20 May 2022, the defendant terminated the Agreements on the grounds of the claimant’s material breaches and/or anticipatory repudiation of the same.
  5. On 25 May 2022, the claimant filed its Demand for Arbitration and Application for Emergency Measures of Protection with the ICDR.
  6. On 15 June 2022, the EA issued the Award, granting reliefs which restored the status quo of the parties to the position before the defendant had terminated the Agreements.
  7. The claimant's New Case was raised only in its post-hearing submissions.

5. Formal Citations

  1. CVG v CVH, Originating Application No 297 of 2022 and Summons No 2715 of 2022, [2022] SGHC 249

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Franchise agreement between CVG and CVH established in Singapore.
CVG filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.
CVG sent CVH a notice of default.
CVH terminated the Agreements.
CVG filed its Demand for Arbitration and Application for Emergency Measures of Protection with the ICDR.
ICDR appointed Mr Grant Hanessian as the EA.
CVH filed its Response to Application for Emergency Measures of Protection.
CVG filed its Reply in Support of Application for Emergency Measures.
Parties made oral arguments before the EA (Emergency Hearing).
EA sent an e-mail to the parties with a list of issues.
Claimant and defendant submitted their respective post-hearing submissions.
EA issued the Award.
CVG requested the EA to sanction the defendant, grant new reliefs, and order the defendant to place orders.
CVG filed its application for permission to enforce the Award in Singapore.
EA issued Procedural Order No 2.
Assistant Registrar made the Enforcement Order.
CVH filed the application to set aside the Enforcement Order.
Hearing date.
Judgment date.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Award
    • Outcome: The court held that the term 'foreign award' in s 29 of the IAA includes foreign interim awards made by an emergency arbitrator. However, the court found that the Award breached s 31(2)(c) of the IAA because the defendant was unable to present its case in the arbitration proceedings.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Applicability of s 29 of the IAA to awards made by emergency arbitrators
      • Whether the award was binding within the meaning of s 29(2) of the IAA
      • Whether the award exceeded the EA’s jurisdiction
      • Whether the award breached the rules of natural justice
      • Whether the award was infra petita
  2. Breach of Natural Justice
    • Outcome: The court found that the defendant was unable to present its case with respect to the claimant’s New Case, which was raised only in its post-hearing submissions. The EA made the Award after the parties made their post-hearing submissions without hearing any further submissions. The court concluded that the defendant’s arguments, had it had the opportunity to present them, could have reasonably made a difference to the EA’s decision.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Excess of Jurisdiction
    • Outcome: The court held that the Award was not beyond the scope of the submission to the arbitration and rejected the defendant’s challenge based on s 31(2)(d) of the IAA.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Enforcement of Emergency Interim Award
  2. Injunctive Relief

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Arbitration
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-GeneralHigh CourtYes[2017] 2 SLR 850SingaporeCited for the three-stage process of purposive interpretation of a legislative provision.
Al Raha Group for Technical Services v PKL Services IncUS District CourtYesNo 1:18-cv-04194-AT, 6 September 2019, [2019] WL 4267765United StatesCited regarding the refusal to confirm an emergency interim award on the ground that the award was an interim placeholder pending constitution of the full arbitral tribunal.
Chinmax Medical Systems Inc v Alere San Diego IncUS District CourtYesNo 10CV2467 WQH (NLS), 27 May 2011, [2011] WL 2135350United StatesCited regarding the denial of a motion to vacate an emergency interim award which was stated to remain in effect pending review of the full arbitration tribunal.
CDM and another v CDPCourt of AppealYes[2021] 2 SLR 235SingaporeCited for the principles in assessing whether an arbitral award should be set aside for an excess of jurisdiction.
CAJ and another v CAI and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2022] 1 SLR 505SingaporeCited regarding the issue of the tribunal's jurisdiction and the introduction of a new defence in closing submissions.
CJA v CIZCourt of AppealYes[2022] SGCA 41SingaporeCited for the principle that the court must look at matters in the round to determine whether the issues in question were live issues in the arbitration.
CRW Joint Operation v PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero) TBKCourt of AppealYes[2011] 4 SLR 305SingaporeCited for the principle that an arbitral award may be set aside or denied enforcement on the ground that the arbitral tribunal failed to exercise the authority that the parties granted to it.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
International Arbitration Act 1994Singapore
United States Bankruptcy Code 11 USCUnited States

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Emergency Arbitrator
  • Emergency Interim Award
  • International Arbitration Act
  • Foreign Award
  • Enforcement Order
  • ICDR Rules
  • Rules of Natural Justice

15.2 Keywords

  • arbitration
  • enforcement
  • foreign award
  • emergency arbitrator
  • singapore
  • international arbitration act

16. Subjects

  • Arbitration
  • International Arbitration
  • Enforcement of Awards

17. Areas of Law

  • Arbitration Law
  • International Arbitration
  • Civil Procedure