CYE v CYF: Setting Aside Arbitration Award for Energy Trading Dispute
CYE, an energy trading company, commenced arbitration against CYF, a petroleum storage company, seeking damages for breach of a storage agreement and related torts, following the collapse of Co A, a related entity. The arbitrator dismissed CYE's claims and allowed CYF's counterclaim for unpaid storage fees. CYE applied to the High Court of Singapore to set aside the award, alleging breaches of natural justice and fraud. The High Court dismissed CYE's application, finding no grounds to set aside the arbitration award.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Claimant's application to set aside the Final Award is dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Arbitration
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application to set aside an arbitration award concerning a dispute between CYE and CYF, involving energy trading and storage agreement. Application dismissed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| S Mohan | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- CYE and CYF entered into a storage agreement for petroleum products.
- Co A, related to CYF, collapsed due to financial liabilities.
- CYE claimed CYF breached the storage agreement and made misrepresentations.
- CYE sought to set aside the arbitration award dismissing its claims.
- CYE alleged CYF suppressed material evidence and gave false testimony.
- The Arbitrator dismissed all of the claimant’s claims and allowed the defendant’s counterclaim.
5. Formal Citations
- CYE v CYF, Originating Application No 642 of 2022, [2023] SGHC 275
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Arbitration Act 2001 | |
| Claimant's affidavit | |
| Defendant's affidavit | |
| Claimant's and Defendant's written submissions | |
| First hearing date | |
| Second hearing date | |
| Third hearing date | |
| Anonymisation order | |
| Judgment reserved and delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Natural Justice
- Outcome: The court held that there was no breach of natural justice.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to consider essential issues
- Failure to provide adequate reasons
- Failure to provide reasonable opportunity to present case
- Fraud
- Outcome: The court held that the making of the Award was not induced or affected by fraud.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Concealment of material documents
- Perjury
- Public Policy
- Outcome: The court held that the Award was not contrary to public policy.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Order to account for product
- Monetary Damages
- Damages to be assessed
- Exemplary damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Negligent Misrepresentation
- Conversion
- Detinue
- Negligence
- Conspiracy by Unlawful Means
10. Practice Areas
- Arbitration
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Energy
- Petroleum
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Soh Beng Tee & Co Pte Ltd v Fairmount Development Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 86 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that parties must be given adequate notice and opportunity to be heard. |
| AKN and another v ALC and others and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 3 SLR 488 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that failure to consider an important issue constitutes a breach of natural justice. |
| BLB and another v BLC and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 1169 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an issue need not be addressed expressly in an award but may be implicitly resolved. |
| L W Infrastructure Pte Ltd v Lim Chin San Contractors Pte Ltd and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 125 | Singapore | Cited for the test of whether the tribunal was denied the benefit of arguments or evidence that had a real chance of making a a difference to its deliberations. |
| CEF and another v CEH | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 2 SLR 918 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an allegation of inadequate reasons and explanations is generally not capable of sustaining a challenge against an award. |
| BZW and another v BZV | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 1 SLR 1080 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the proverbial dots connect well enough on the face of the Award. |
| Ong Han Ling and another v American International Assurance Co Ltd and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 549 | Singapore | Cited as distinguishable on the facts. |
| SEF Construction Pte Ltd v Skoy Connected Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 733 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that natural justice requires that the parties should be heard; it does not require that they be given responses on all submissions made. |
| United Overseas Bank Ltd v Lippo Marina Collection Pte Ltd and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 2 SLR 597 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of the Hampshire Land principle. |
| Re Hampshire Land Company | Chancery Division | Yes | [1986] 2 Ch 743 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that knowledge will not be attributed to the principal where it is acquired by an agent who is defrauding the principal in the same transaction. |
| Bilta (UK) Ltd v Nazir (No. 2) | Supreme Court | Yes | [2015] UKSC 23 | United Kingdom | Cited for the application of the Re Hampshire Land Company principle. |
| JVL Agro Industries Ltd v Agritrade International Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 4 SLR 768 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that if a party is not given a reasonable opportunity to present its case, that could also constitute a breach of natural justice. |
| CAJ and another v CAI and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 1 SLR 505 | Singapore | Cited as distinguished on its facts. |
| 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 fraud includes procedural fraud. |
| CLX v CLY and another and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 17 | Singapore | Cited for the key principles concerning perjury and concealment of evidence in an arbitration. |
| Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels Inc and another v Global Gaming Philippines LLC and another | High Court | Yes | [2021] 3 SLR 725 | Singapore | Cited for the key principles concerning perjury and concealment of evidence in an arbitration. |
| Dongwoo Mann+Hummel Co Ltd v Mann+Hummel GmbH | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 871 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a party hides even the existence of the damning document and then dishonestly denies its very existence. |
| Beijing Sinozonto Mining Investment Co Ltd v Goldenray Consortium (Singapore) Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 814 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an award obtained by fraud would violate the basic notions of morality and justice, thus amounting to a breach of the public policy of Singapore. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Arbitration Act 2001 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Arbitration
- Storage Agreement
- Final Award
- Setting Aside
- Breach of Contract
- Fraud
- Natural Justice
- Misrepresentation
- Petroleum Products
- Storage Tanks
15.2 Keywords
- arbitration
- contract
- energy
- storage
- fraud
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Arbitration | 95 |
| Recourse against award | 95 |
| Setting aside | 95 |
| Fraud and Deceit | 30 |
| Contract Law | 30 |
| Misrepresentation | 30 |
| Torts | 20 |
| Civil Procedure | 15 |
| Evidence | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- Contract Law
- Energy Trading
- Civil Procedure