CZT v CZU: Setting Aside Arbitral Award for Breach of Contract

CZT applied to the Singapore International Commercial Court to set aside an arbitral award issued in favor of CZU. The arbitration, seated in Singapore, concerned a breach of contract claim related to the delivery of defective material packages. The court, comprising Chua Lee Ming J, Dominique Hascher IJ, and Sir Jeremy Cooke IJ, dismissed CZT's application, finding no breach of natural justice or other grounds to set aside the award. The court held that the arbitral tribunal did not fail to consider critical arguments, nor did it base its conclusions on extraneous matters, and there was no apparent bias.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Singapore International Commercial Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Arbitration

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Application to set aside an arbitral award for breach of contract. The court dismissed the application, finding no breach of natural justice.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
CZTPlaintiffCorporationApplication DismissedLostNair Suresh Sukumaran, Tan Tse Hsien, Bryan (Chen Shixian), Joel Wang Pinwen
CZUDefendantCorporationJudgment for DefendantWonKoh Swee Yen, Claire Lim, Pang Yi Ching, Alessa, Teo Wei Kiat Samuel

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chua Lee MingJudge of the High CourtYes
Dominique HascherInternational JudgeNo
Jeremy CookeInternational JudgeNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Nair Suresh SukumaranPK Wong & Nair LLC
Tan Tse HsienPK Wong & Nair LLC
Bryan (Chen Shixian)PK Wong & Nair LLC
Joel Wang PinwenPK Wong & Nair LLC
Koh Swee YenWongPartnership LLP
Claire LimWongPartnership LLP
Pang Yi ChingWongPartnership LLP
AlessaWongPartnership LLP
Teo Wei Kiat SamuelWongPartnership LLP

4. Facts

  1. The plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant to deliver material packages.
  2. A third party (Contractor) was to use the material packages to construct products for the defendant.
  3. The defendant alleged that certain components of the material packages were defective.
  4. The defendant filed an action in Country D against the Contractor and the plaintiff.
  5. The claim against the plaintiff was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction because of an arbitration agreement.
  6. The defendant commenced arbitration proceedings against the plaintiff in Singapore.
  7. The plaintiff applied to set aside the arbitral award.

5. Formal Citations

  1. CZT v CZU, Originating Summons No 1 of 2023, [2023] SGHC(I) 22

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Arbitration conducted in accordance with the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce 2017.
Defendant commenced arbitration proceedings against the plaintiff.
Procedural Order No 1 Amended.
Final Award dated.
ICC sent the Final Award to the parties.
Dr Habegger sent a copy of his dissenting opinion to the parties’ lawyers.
Prof Kim spoke to the defendant’s solicitor.
Prof Kim spoke to the plaintiff’s solicitor.
Plaintiff’s counsel disclosed the contents of Prof Kim’s call to the plaintiff’s solicitor.
Prof Kim replied to the plaintiff’s counsel’s email.
Plaintiff filed the application to set aside the Final Award.
Plaintiff filed Summonses Nos 788 of 2023, 789 of 2023 and 790 of 2023.
Proceedings were transferred to the Singapore International Commercial Court.
The Production Applications were dismissed.
Judgment reserved.
Judgment.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Natural Justice
    • Outcome: The court found no breach of natural justice.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to consider critical arguments
      • Conclusions based on extraneous matters
      • Apparent bias
  2. Excess of Jurisdiction
    • Outcome: The court found that the arbitral tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction.
    • Category: Jurisdictional
  3. Apparent Bias
    • Outcome: The court found no reasonable suspicion of bias.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Setting aside of arbitral award

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Arbitration
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
CJA v CIZSingapore Court of AppealYes[2022] 2 SLR 557SingaporeCited for the principle that an error of law or fact in the award does not amount to a breach of natural justice.
Coal & Oil Co LLC v GHCL LtdSingapore High CourtYes[2015] 3 SLR 154SingaporeCited for the principle that challenges based on alleged breaches of natural justice are limited to egregious cases where the error is clear on the face of the record.
TMM Division Maritima SA de CV v Pacific Richfield Marine Pte LtdSingapore High CourtYes[2013] 4 SLR 972SingaporeCited for the principle that challenges based on alleged breaches of natural justice are limited to egregious cases where the error is clear on the face of the record.
Soh Beng Tee & Co Pte Ltd v Fairmount Development Pte LtdSingapore Court of AppealYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 86SingaporeCited for the requirements to establish a challenge to an arbitration award as having contravened the rules of natural justice.
L W Infrastructure Pte Ltd v Lim Chin San Contractors Pte Ltd and another appealSingapore High CourtYes[2013] 1 SLR 125SingaporeCited for the test of prejudice in breach of natural justice claims.
CKH v CKG and another matterSingapore Court of AppealYes[2022] 2 SLR 1SingaporeCited for the principle that the failure by an arbitral tribunal to address an issue submitted to it for decision can constitute a breach of the fair hearing rule.
Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte LtdSingapore High CourtYes[2010] SGHC 80SingaporeCited for the principle that the failure by an arbitral tribunal to address an issue submitted to it for decision can constitute a breach of the fair hearing rule.
AKN and another v ALC and others and other appealsSingapore Court of AppealYes[2015] 3 SLR 488SingaporeCited for the principle that the failure by an arbitral tribunal to address an issue submitted to it for decision can constitute a breach of the fair hearing rule.
BZW and another v BZVSingapore High CourtYes[2022] 1 SLR 1080SingaporeCited for the requirements of the tribunal’s chain of reasoning to comply with the fair hearing rule.
CYE v CYFSingapore High CourtYes[2023] SGHC 275SingaporeCited for the principle that an arbitral tribunal has to ensure that the essential issues are dealt with; it need not deal with each point made by a party.
BTN and another v BTP and another and other mattersSingapore High CourtYes[2022] 4 SLR 683SingaporeCited for the principle that the application and supporting affidavit must inform the defendant of the specific grounds upon which the arbitral award is being challenged.
CFJ and another v CFL and another and other mattersSingapore Court of AppealYes[2023] 3 SLR 1SingaporeCited for the distinction between the issue determined by a tribunal and the arguments of the parties on the issue in the context of excess of jurisdiction.
BOI v BOJSingapore Court of AppealYes[2018] 2 SLR 1156SingaporeCited for the test for apparent bias.
CZT v CZUSingapore International Commercial CourtNo[2023] SGHC(I) 11SingaporeRefers to the court's decision to dismiss the Production Applications.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
International Arbitration Act 1994Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Arbitral award
  • Breach of contract
  • Natural justice
  • Apparent bias
  • Excess of jurisdiction
  • Transfer Agreement
  • Provisional Contract
  • Material Packages
  • ICC Rules 2017
  • Dissenting opinion

15.2 Keywords

  • arbitration
  • breach of contract
  • setting aside
  • Singapore
  • international commercial court

16. Subjects

  • Arbitration
  • Contract Law
  • Civil Procedure

17. Areas of Law

  • Arbitration Law
  • Contract Law
  • Civil Procedure