Hunan Xiangzhong Mining v Oilive: Jurisdiction of Arbitrator Appointed by SIAC President
In Hunan Xiangzhong Mining Group Ltd v Oilive Pte Ltd, the Singapore High Court addressed an application by Hunan Xiangzhong Mining Group Limited to declare that the sole arbitrator, Mr. Timothy Cooke, lacked jurisdiction over arbitration proceedings in SIAC Arbitration No 934 of 2020. The plaintiff argued that the arbitrator's appointment was invalid because the arbitration agreement stipulated appointment by the Chairman of SIAC, whereas the arbitrator was appointed by the President. The court dismissed the application, ruling that the arbitrator's appointment was valid and in accordance with the arbitration agreement, properly construed in light of the SIAC Rules 2016.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Arbitration
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court rules on the jurisdiction of an arbitrator appointed by the SIAC President, where the arbitration agreement specified appointment by the Chairman.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hunan Xiangzhong Mining Group Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| Oilive Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Application dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| S Mohan | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Lee Wei Yuen Arvin | Wee Swee Teow LLP |
| Leong Lu Yuan | CLASIS LLC |
4. Facts
- Hunan Xiangzhong Mining Group Ltd sought a declaration that the sole arbitrator lacked jurisdiction.
- The arbitration agreement stipulated that the tribunal shall consist of a single arbitrator agreed upon by both parties, or if not so agreed, by the Chairman of SIAC.
- The arbitrator was appointed by the President of the Court of Arbitration of the SIAC, not the Chairman.
- Hunan Xiangzhong Mining Group Ltd argued that the arbitrator's appointment was invalid.
- Oilive Pte Ltd contended that the appointment procedures were correctly observed under the SIAC Rules 2016.
- The SIAC Rules 2016 provide for the President to appoint the arbitrator.
- Hunan Xiangzhong Mining Group Ltd did not respond to the Notice of Arbitration or provide comments on the tribunal's constitution.
5. Formal Citations
- Hunan Xiangzhong Mining Group Ltd v Oilive Pte Ltd, Originating Summons No 920 of 2021, [2022] SGHC 43
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Contract signed for the sale and purchase of light cycle oil. | |
| Arbitration commenced by Oilive Pte Ltd. | |
| Oilive Pte Ltd requested SIAC to appoint a sole arbitrator. | |
| SIAC announced it had requested the President to make the appointment. | |
| President appointed the Arbitrator. | |
| Preliminary meeting held by the Arbitrator. | |
| Oilive Pte Ltd filed its memorial. | |
| Evidential hearing took place. | |
| Hunan Xiangzhong Mining Group Ltd appointed counsel. | |
| Hunan Xiangzhong Mining Group Ltd made a jurisdictional challenge. | |
| Arbitrator ruled that he has jurisdiction over the Arbitration. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal
- Outcome: The court ruled that the arbitrator had jurisdiction over the arbitration.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Validity of arbitrator's appointment
- Interpretation of arbitration agreement
- Application of SIAC Rules
- Timeliness of Jurisdictional Challenge
- Outcome: The court found that the jurisdictional challenge was made out of time but considered the challenge de novo under s 10(3) IAA.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to file statement of defence
- Compliance with SIAC Rules
- Application of UNCITRAL Model Law
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration that the sole arbitrator does not have jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings
9. Cause of Actions
- Declaration regarding jurisdiction of arbitrator
10. Practice Areas
- Arbitration
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Mining
- Commodities Trading
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sanum Investments Ltd v Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 536 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an application made under s 10(3) of the IAA is to be reviewed by the court de novo. |
| CBS v CBP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 4 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that procedural rules should not be allowed to defeat substantive justice and are subject to the rules of natural justice. |
| Rakna Arakshaka Lanka Ltd v Avant Garde Maritime Services (Pte) Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 131 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that Art 16(2) was formulated to deal with challenges to the tribunal’s jurisdiction and was aimed, in particular, at ensuring that any such objections were raised without delay. |
| Rakna Araksha Lanka Ltd v Avant Garde Maritime Services (Pte) Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2019] 4 SLR 995 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the phraseology of Art 16(2) of the Model Law contemplates a party that is engaged in the arbitration. |
| PT First Media TBK v Astro Nusantara International BV | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 372 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that even if a party did not utilise the active remedy of a jurisdictional challenge under Art 16, it would not be precluded from relying on lack of jurisdiction as a ground to subsequently resist enforcement of a final award. |
| Insigma Technology Co Ltd v Alstom Technology Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 3 SLR(R) 936 | Singapore | Cited for the guiding principles as regards the construction of an arbitration agreement. |
| BNA v BNB and another | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 142 | Singapore | Cited for the summary of the guiding principles of primary importance in construing an arbitration agreement. |
| Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels Inc and another v Global Gaming Philippines LLC and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 1045 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there is an absolute three-month time limit in Art 34(3) of the Model Law which prevents the court from entertaining setting-aside applications brought after the expiry of that limit. |
| BTN and another v BTP and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 276 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that under s 10(3) of the IAA, the court considers the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction on the basis of an independent de novo review. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| SIAC Rules (6th edition, 1 August 2016) |
| SIAC Rules (5th edition, 1 April 2013) |
| SIAC Rules (4th edition, 1 July 2010) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Arbitration
- Jurisdiction
- Arbitrator
- SIAC
- Chairman
- President
- Appointment
- Nomination
- SIAC Rules
- International Arbitration Act
- UNCITRAL Model Law
15.2 Keywords
- arbitration
- jurisdiction
- SIAC
- arbitrator
- appointment
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Arbitration | 95 |
| International Commercial Arbitration | 80 |
| Jurisdiction | 75 |
| Contract Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal
- Appointment of Arbitrator