DGE v DGF: Setting Aside of Partial Arbitration Award on Jurisdiction and Liability for Defective Photovoltaic Modules
In DGE v DGF, the High Court of Singapore dismissed DGE's application to set aside a partial arbitration award concerning defective photovoltaic modules supplied by DGE to DGF. The court, presided over by Judicial Commissioner Kristy Tan, found no grounds to challenge the tribunal's jurisdiction or decision-making process. The primary legal issue revolved around whether the arbitral tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction and whether there were breaches of natural justice. The court upheld the tribunal's decision, finding that DGE had a reasonable opportunity to present its case and that the tribunal's findings were within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Originating Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Arbitration
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court dismisses application to set aside partial arbitration award, finding no jurisdictional errors or breaches of natural justice in a dispute over defective photovoltaic modules.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DGE | Claimant, Respondent | Corporation | Application Dismissed | Lost | Lai Yew Fei, Tao Tao, Brendan Tan Zi Jian |
| DGF | Defendant, Applicant | Corporation | Partial Award Upheld | Won | Tan Chee Meng, Lim Wei Lee, Frank Oh Sheng Loong, Daryl Wong Zheng Hui, Wee Min, Chin Ming Fwu |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Kristy Tan | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Tan Chee Meng | WongPartnership LLP |
| Lim Wei Lee | WongPartnership LLP |
| Frank Oh Sheng Loong | WongPartnership LLP |
| Daryl Wong Zheng Hui | WongPartnership LLP |
| Wee Min | WongPartnership LLP |
| Chin Ming Fwu | WongPartnership LLP |
| Lai Yew Fei | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
| Tao Tao | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
| Brendan Tan Zi Jian | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
4. Facts
- DGE supplied photovoltaic modules to DGF.
- The modules were installed on residential houses in Country X.
- DGF claimed the modules had defective backsheets.
- The arbitration was bifurcated into liability and remedies phases.
- The tribunal found 365,000 modules supplied by DGE were defective.
- DGE applied to set aside the partial award.
- The arbitration was seated in Singapore and conducted under the IAA and UNCITRAL Rules 2013.
5. Formal Citations
- DGE v DGF, Originating Application No 1165 of 2023, [2024] SGHC 107
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Purchase Agreement for 50,000 PV modules signed. | |
| PV Module Sales Contract for 450,000 PV modules signed. | |
| PV modules delivered to F in Country Z. | |
| F discovered cracks in backsheets of PV modules. | |
| F commenced ARB 1 and ARB 2 against E. | |
| Hearing of the liability phase of the Arbitration began. | |
| Hearing of the liability phase of the Arbitration concluded. | |
| Partial Award on Jurisdiction and Liability issued. | |
| Corrections to the Partial Award issued. | |
| E's 1st Affidavit filed. | |
| HC/OA 1165/2023 filed. | |
| EWS and FWS filed. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal
- Outcome: The court held that the arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction over the dispute.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Interpretation of arbitration clauses
- Preconditions to arbitration
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court upheld the tribunal's finding that DGE breached the contract by supplying defective photovoltaic modules.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Defective goods
- Fitness for purpose
- Exclusion clauses
- Breach of Natural Justice
- Outcome: The court found no breach of natural justice, holding that DGE had a reasonable opportunity to present its case.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Reasonable opportunity to present case
- Scope of submission to arbitration
- Adherence to agreed arbitral procedure
- Interpretation of Contractual Terms
- Outcome: The court upheld the tribunal's interpretation of the contractual terms, including the third-party warranty and exclusion clauses.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Third-party warranty
- Exclusion clauses
- Incorporation by reference
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside of Partial Award on Jurisdiction and Liability
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Breach of Article 35 of the CISG
10. Practice Areas
- Arbitration
- Commercial Litigation
- Construction Disputes
11. Industries
- Construction
- Energy
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AKN and another v ALC and others and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 3 SLR 488 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court determines de novo challenges to the tribunal’s jurisdiction. |
| Larsen Oil and Gas Pte Ltd v Petroprod Ltd (in official liquidation in the Cayman Islands and in compulsory liquidation in Singapore) | High Court | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 414 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that arbitration clauses should be generously construed. |
| Bintai Kindenko Pte Ltd v Samsung C&T Corp and another | High Court | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 295 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Limited Warranty was incorporated by express reference into the Contracts. |
| Soh Beng Tee & Co Pte Ltd v Fairmount Development Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 86 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements to establish a breach of the fair hearing rule of natural justice. |
| CAJ and another v CAI and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 1 SLR 505 | Singapore | Cited regarding the scope of submission to arbitration and the requirements for a fair hearing. |
| Phoenixfin Pte Ltd and others v Convexity Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 2 SLR 23 | Singapore | Cited regarding the requirements for a fair hearing and the scope of submission to arbitration. |
| JVL Agro Industries Ltd v Agritrade International Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 4 SLR 768 | Singapore | Cited regarding the requirements for a fair hearing and the scope of submission to arbitration. |
| CJA v CIZ | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 2 SLR 557 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there is a difference between a party having no opportunity to address a point and a party failing to recognize or take the opportunity which exists. |
| CRW Joint Operation v PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero) TBK | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 305 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a tribunal is only required to deal with the essential issues and need not deal with every point or argument made by the parties. |
| Bintai Kindenko Pte Ltd v Samsung C&T Corp | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 532 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a tribunal is only required to deal with the essential issues and need not deal with every point or argument made by the parties. |
| TMM Division Maritima SA de CV v Pacific Richfield Marine Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 972 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a tribunal is only required to deal with the essential issues and need not deal with every point or argument made by the parties. |
| Lao Holdings NV and another v Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2023] 1 SLR 55 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements for establishing a ground to set aside an arbitral award where an agreed arbitral procedure was not adhered to. |
| AMZ v AXX | High Court | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 549 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements for establishing a ground to set aside an arbitral award where an agreed arbitral procedure was not adhered to. |
| L W Infrastructure Pte Ltd v Lim Chin San Contractors Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 125 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a breach of natural justice would not attract curial intervention if the same result could or would ultimately have been attained in the arbitration. |
| Hewlett-Packard Singapore (Sales) Pte Ltd v Chin Shu Hwa Corrina | High Court | Yes | [2016] 2 SLR 1083 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the parties’ subjective intentions are not relevant pursuant to the objective principle of contractual interpretation. |
| Lim Siau Hing @ Lim Kim Hoe and another v Compass Consulting Pte Ltd and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2023] SGCA 39 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it remains an open question whether evidence of subsequent conduct may be admitted for the purposes of contractual interpretation. |
| CBX and another v CBZ and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 1 SLR 47 | Singapore | Cited for the inquiry under Art 34(2)(a)(iii) involving a two-stage process. |
| PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SA | High Court | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 597 | Singapore | Cited for the inquiry under Art 34(2)(a)(iii) involving a two-stage process. |
| CDM and another v CDP | High Court | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 235 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that matters within the scope of the submission to arbitration are identified with reference to five sources. |
| CKH v CKG and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 2 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that matters can arise which are or become within the scope of the issues submitted for arbitral decision, even though they are not pleaded. |
| Asiana Airlines, Inc v Gate Gourmet Korea Co, Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 4 SLR 158 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the scope of an arbitration may widen implicitly to include a point that was clearly raised and which the parties had an adequate opportunity to address. |
| BZW and another v BZV | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 1 SLR 1080 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a tribunal may adopt a chain of reasoning which arose by reasonable implication from the parties’ pleadings or flowed reasonably from their arguments. |
| Coal & Oil Co LLC v GHCL Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 3 SLR 154 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the procedural breach must be material and this often requires proof that the breach could reasonably be said to have altered the final outcome of the arbitral proceedings in some meaningful way. |
| CVV and others v CWB | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2024] 1 SLR 32 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it is not settled in the case law whether a tribunal’s failure to give adequate reasons gives rise in itself to a ground to set aside an award. |
| Trustees of Rotoaira Forest Trust v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 2 NZLR 452 | New Zealand | Cited for the principle that the Tribunal is entitled to reshuffle the way in which different concepts have been combined. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (with new article 1, paragraph 4, as adopted in 2013) |
| UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| International Arbitration Act 1994 | Singapore |
| Sale of Goods Act 1979 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Photovoltaic modules
- AAA backsheets
- Partial Award
- Arbitration
- Inherent defect
- Third-Party Warranty
- CISG
- Jurisdiction
- Natural justice
- Fitness for purpose
- Durability
- Safety hazard
15.2 Keywords
- arbitration
- photovoltaic modules
- defective goods
- jurisdiction
- natural justice
- Singapore
- UNCITRAL
- CISG
- contract law
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- Contract Law
- International Trade
- Construction Dispute
17. Areas of Law
- Arbitration Law
- Contract Law
- International Commercial Law
- Construction Law