Wang Bin v Zhong Sihui: Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Award & Notice of Arbitration
In Wang Bin v Zhong Sihui, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore heard an application by Zhong Sihui to set aside an enforcement order for a foreign arbitral award obtained by Wang Bin. The arbitration arose from a debt under a loan agreement signed by Zhong Sihui and her husband. Zhong Sihui argued she did not receive proper notice of the arbitration proceedings and that Wang Bin failed to make full and frank disclosure during the application for the enforcement order. The court dismissed Zhong Sihui's application, finding she had actual notice of the arbitration and that there was no material non-disclosure.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Defendant's application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court enforces a foreign arbitral award, dismissing the defendant's challenge based on lack of notice and non-disclosure.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wang Bin | Claimant | Individual | Application granted | Won | |
| Zhong Sihui | Defendant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Wong Li Kok Alex | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The defendant signed a loan agreement jointly with her husband, Lin Weisen.
- The claimant obtained an award against the defendant in an arbitration in Shenzhen, China.
- The defendant applied to set aside the enforcement order on the basis that she did not have proper notice of the arbitration proceedings.
- The claimant argued that the defendant had actual notice of the arbitration.
- The SCIA's delivery logs show that documents relating to the arbitration had been delivered to the 4732 Number.
- The Loan Agreement included the 4732 Number as the defendant’s phone number.
- The defendant acknowledged that the 4732 Number was physically in her care and custody in Singapore.
5. Formal Citations
- Wang Bin v Zhong Sihui, Originating Application 1084 of 2023 (Summons No 46 of 2024), [2024] SGHC 189
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Originating Application 1084 of 2023 filed | |
| Claimant's 1st Affidavit dated | |
| Court order granted to the claimant to enforce the Award | |
| Defendant filed affidavits in support of SUM 46 | |
| Mr. Lin filed affidavits in support of SUM 46 | |
| Claimant filed response affidavit | |
| Defendant and Mr Lin filed their second affidavits | |
| Hearing date | |
| Hearing date | |
| Hearing date | |
| Claimant's Written Costs Submissions dated | |
| Defendant's Written Costs Submissions dated | |
| Hearing date | |
| Judgment date |
7. Legal Issues
- Notice of Arbitration
- Outcome: The court found that the defendant had actual notice of the arbitration proceedings.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Proper notice
- Actual notice
- Duty of Full and Frank Disclosure
- Outcome: The court found that there was no material non-disclosure on the part of the claimant in securing the Enforcement Order.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside of Enforcement Order
9. Cause of Actions
- Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Award
10. Practice Areas
- Arbitration
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DEM v DEL and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2024] SGHC 80 | Singapore | Summarised the distinction between proper notice and actual notice in the context of s 48(1)(a)(iii) of the Arbitration Act 2001, principles equally applicable to s 31(2)(c) IAA. |
| DBX and another v DBZ | Singapore International Commercial Court | No | [2023] SGHC(I) 18 | Singapore | Addressed the issue of actual notice where arbitration documents had been sent to the registered address and functioning email addresses of one of the corporate applicant. |
| Re Shanghai Xinan Screenwall Building & Decoration Co Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2022] 5 SLR 393 | Singapore | On the point of proper notice that generally where an address has been given in a contract, there is an inference that the address is provided to facilitate communications and in the absence of contrary intentions, service on that address would amount to proper notice. |
| OUE Lippo Healthcare Ltd v David Lim Kao Kun | Hong Kong Court of First Instance | No | [2019] HKCU 2454 | Hong Kong | Case involving the enforcement of foreign arbitral award. The applicant in that case had identified two email addresses at which notice of the arbitration could be brought to the arbitral respondent’s attention. |
| Storey, David Ian Andrew v Planet Arkadia Pte Ltd and others | High Court | No | [2016] SGHCR 7 | Singapore | Addressed the unreliability of serving originating process by electronic means other than email. |
| PT First Media TBK (formerly known as PT Broadband Multimedia TBK) v Astro Nusantara International BV and others and another appeal | Court of Appeal | No | [2014] 1 SLR 372 | Singapore | Authority for the proposition that there is a high threshold to be met for a party asserting that otherwise actionable rights have been waived. |
| The “Vasiliy Golovin” | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 994 | Singapore | An applicant must disclose to the court all matters within its knowledge even if they are prejudicial to its case. |
| The Republic of India v Deutsche Telekom AG | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2024] 1 SLR 56 | Singapore | The duty of full and frank disclosure arises as a matter of common sense and the application of the rule depends on an assessment of all the facts and circumstances in the case. |
| Bahtera Offshore (M) Sdn Bhd v Sim Kok Beng and another | High Court | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 365 | Singapore | Importance of the applicant addressing defences that the defendants are likely to raise against an application if that defendant was present. |
| Cupid Jewels Pte Ltd v Orchard Central Pte Ltd and another appeal | Court of Appeal | No | [2014] 2 SLR 156 | Singapore | Limited the landlord’s duty to disclose facts in applications for distress. |
| Re X Diamond Capital Pte Ltd (Metech International Ltd. Non-party) | High Court | No | [2024] 3 SLR 913 | Singapore | Hearsay evidence and should be inadmissible. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| International Arbitration Act 1994 | Singapore |
| Arbitration Act 2001 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Enforcement Order
- Arbitration
- Actual Notice
- Proper Notice
- Material Non-Disclosure
- SCIA Rules
- 4732 Number
15.2 Keywords
- arbitration
- enforcement
- foreign award
- notice
- disclosure
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- Civil Procedure
- Conflict of Laws
- International Law