ONGC Petro additions Ltd v DL E&C Co: Setting Aside Arbitration Award for Exceeding Jurisdiction and Breach of Natural Justice

ONGC Petro additions Ltd (OPAL) applied to the General Division of the High Court of Singapore to set aside an arbitration award against DL E&C Co, Ltd (Daelim). The arbitration, bifurcated into liability and quantum phases, concerned a contract for the construction of a High-Density Polyethylene plant. OPAL claimed damages for Daelim's abandonment of the contract. The Tribunal found Daelim liable but awarded only nominal damages to OPAL at the quantum stage. OPAL sought to set aside the award, alleging the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction and breached natural justice. The High Court dismissed OPAL's application, finding no merit in the allegations.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Claimant's application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court dismisses ONGC Petro additions Ltd's application to set aside an arbitration award, finding no exceeding of jurisdiction or breach of natural justice.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
S MohanJudgeYes

4. Counsels

4. Facts

  1. OPAL invited bids for the construction of a High-Density Polyethylene plant in November 2009.
  2. Daelim's bid was selected, and a Notification of Award was issued on January 6, 2011.
  3. Daelim informed OPAL on February 11, 2011, that it could not enter into a formal contract.
  4. OPAL terminated the NOA on April 28, 2011, and awarded the contract to Samsung on April 29, 2011.
  5. OPAL commenced arbitration against Daelim on November 26, 2012, claiming damages.
  6. The arbitration was bifurcated into liability and quantum phases.
  7. The Tribunal found Daelim liable but awarded only nominal damages to OPAL at the quantum stage.

5. Formal Citations

  1. ONGC Petro additions Ltd v DL E&C Co, Ltd (formerly known as Daelim Industrial Co Ltd), Originating Application No 91 of 2022, [2023] SGHC 197

6. Timeline

DateEvent
OPAL invited bids for the construction of a High-Density Polyethylene plant.
L+EPC contract awarded to Daelim via Notification of Award.
Daelim informed OPAL it could not enter into the formal contract.
OPAL terminated the NOA.
L+EPC contract awarded to Samsung.
OPAL commenced arbitration proceedings against Daelim.
Liability hearing began.
Liability hearing concluded.
Final award on liability issued.
Correction to the liability award issued.
Quantum hearing began.
Quantum hearing concluded.
Second final award on quantum issued.
Further correction on quantum award issued.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Excess of Jurisdiction
    • Outcome: The court found that the Tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Revisiting issues already decided in an earlier award
      • Tribunal exceeding its mandate
  2. Breach of Natural Justice
    • Outcome: The court found that there was no breach of natural justice.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Denial of fair hearing
      • Manifestly incoherent decision
      • Unforeseeable chain of reasoning

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Setting aside of arbitration award
  2. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Arbitration
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Petrochemical

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero) TBK v CRW Joint OperationCourt of AppealYes[2015] 4 SLR 364SingaporeCited for the definition of a 'final' award in arbitration.
Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels Inc and another v Global Gaming Philippines LLC and anotherSingapore Court of AppealYes[2021] 2 SLR 1279SingaporeCited for the res judicata effect of arbitral awards.
York International Pte Ltd v Voltas LtdHigh CourtYes[2022] SGHC 153SingaporeCited for the approach of the court in determining if an arbitral tribunal has resolved an issue finally and conclusively.
CZT v CZUSingapore International Commercial CourtYes[2023] SGHC(I) 11SingaporeCited for the principle of confidentiality of arbitrators’ deliberations.
Soh Beng Tee & Co Pte Ltd v Fairmount Development Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 86SingaporeCited for the requirements to establish a breach of natural justice.
BZW and another v BZVSingapore High CourtYes[2022] 1 SLR 1080SingaporeCited for the breach of fair hearing rule where an arbitral tribunal issues a manifestly incoherent decision.
CDM and another v CDPCourt of AppealYes[2021] 2 SLR 235SingaporeCited for the overlapping allegations of breach of natural justice and excess of jurisdiction.
L W Infrastructure Pte Ltd v Lim Chin San Contractors Pte Ltd and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2013] 1 SLR 125SingaporeCited for the requirement of actual or real prejudice for setting aside an award on grounds of a breach of natural justice.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
International Arbitration Act 1994Singapore
International Arbitration Act 1994Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Arbitration
  • Award
  • Functus officio
  • Jurisdiction
  • Natural justice
  • Net Present Value
  • High-Density Polyethylene plant
  • L+EPC contract
  • Notification of Award
  • Liability
  • Quantum

15.2 Keywords

  • Arbitration
  • Setting aside
  • Jurisdiction
  • Natural justice
  • Contract
  • Damages

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Arbitration
  • Contract Law
  • Civil Procedure