Siddiqsons Tin Plate Ltd v New Metallurgy Hi-Tech Group Co Ltd: Setting Aside Arbitration Award for Breach of Natural Justice

In Siddiqsons Tin Plate Ltd v New Metallurgy Hi-Tech Group Co Ltd, the High Court of Singapore dismissed Siddiqsons' application to set aside an arbitration award in favor of New Metallurgy. The case arose from disputes over contracts related to Siddiqsons' Cold Rolling Mill and Acid Regeneration Plant projects. Siddiqsons claimed the arbitral tribunal breached natural justice. The court, presided over by Hri Kumar Nair J, found no such breach and upheld the award, ordering Siddiqsons to pay costs.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Arbitration

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court dismisses Siddiqsons' application to set aside an arbitration award, finding no breach of natural justice by the Tribunal. The case concerned a dispute over contracts for goods and services.

1.7 Decision Date

24 October 2024

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Siddiqsons Tin Plate Ltd	Applicant	Corporation	Application dismissed	Lost	Zhulkarnain bin Abdul Rahim of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP Lum Rui Loong Manfred of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP Cheong Wei Wen John of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
New Metallurgy Hi-Tech Group Co Ltd	Respondent	Corporation	Application dismissed	Won	Tan KY Won Terence of Genesis Law Corporation Sandra Lye Hui Wen of Genesis Law Corporation Tan Lena (Chen Lina) of Genesis Law Corporation

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Hri Kumar Nair	Judge of the High Court	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Zhulkarnain bin Abdul Rahim	Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Lum Rui Loong Manfred	Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Cheong Wei Wen John	Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Tan KY Won Terence	Genesis Law Corporation
Sandra Lye Hui Wen	Genesis Law Corporation
Tan Lena (Chen Lina)	Genesis Law Corporation

4. Facts

Siddiqsons and New Metallurgy were parties to an arbitration commenced by New Metallurgy.
Siddiqsons applied to set aside the award made by the arbitral tribunal for breach of natural justice.
The parties entered into contracts for New Metallurgy to supply goods and services for Siddiqsons' projects in Pakistan.
The contracts provided for disputes to be settled by arbitration.
New Metallurgy filed a Notice of Arbitration with the Singapore International Arbitration Centre.
Siddiqsons argued the Tribunal failed to consider its arguments and denied its right to present its case.
The Tribunal held Siddiqsons liable to pay New Metallurgy damages and costs.

5. Formal Citations

Siddiqsons Tin Plate Ltd v New Metallurgy Hi-Tech Group Co Ltd, Originating Application No 809 of 2022, [2024] SGHC 272

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2020-08-27	New Metallurgy filed its Notice of Arbitration with the Singapore International Arbitration Centre
2020-09-17	Siddiqsons filed its Reply to the Notice of Arbitration
2020-10-07	The SIAC Court of Arbitration granted the consolidation application
2020-11-11	The Tribunal was constituted
2020-12-21	Tribunal issued its procedural directions
2021-01-20	New Metallurgy filed its Statement of Claim
2021-03-17	Siddiqsons filed its Reply to the Statement of Claim/Statement of Defence and Counterclaim
2021-03-22	New Metallurgy filed a “Reply Opinion on Applicable Law”
2021-04-08	The Tribunal issued its decision on the applicable substantive law
2021-04-28	Parties filed further pleadings
2021-05-26	Siddiqsons filed its Rejoinder to Reply to Statement of Defence and Reply to Defence to Counterclaim
2021-06-09	Parties filed further pleadings
2021-06-16	Parties submitted their respective lists of issues for the Tribunal’s consideration
2021-06-28	The Tribunal circulated a draft Memorandum of Issues and invited the parties to submit comments
2021-06-30	Both parties provided their respective comments to the draft Memorandum of Issues
2021-07-07	Siddiqsons informed the Tribunal and New Metallurgy that it had no document production requests
2021-07-08	New Metallurgy submitted its document production requests
2021-07-14	The Tribunal circulated the finalised Memorandum of Issues
2022-01-03	Evidential hearing of the Arbitration began
2022-01-07	Evidential hearing of the Arbitration concluded
2022-10-06	The Tribunal issued the final award in the Arbitration
2022-11-25	The Tribunal issued a correction to the Final Award
2022-12-05	Siddiqsons brought this application under s 24(b) of the International Arbitration Act 1994
2024-05-23	New Metallurgy’s solicitors filed their appointment notice in these proceedings
2024-07-15	Application and supporting documents were served on New Metallurgy in China
2024-08-28	Hearing
2024-10-25	Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

Breach of Natural Justice
- Outcome: The court found no breach of natural justice.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Failure to consider arguments
  - Denial of right to present case
  - Denial of right to respond to case

8. Remedies Sought

Setting aside of arbitral award

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

Arbitration
Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Manufacturing

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
China Machine New Energy Corp v Jaguar Energy Guatemala LLC and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2020] 1 SLR 695	Singapore	Cited for the principles on setting aside arbitral awards based on breach of natural justice, including the requirements to establish the breach and resulting prejudice.
Soh Beng Tee & Co Pte Ltd v Fairmount Development Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 3 SLR(R) 86	Singapore	Cited for establishing the requirements an applicant must meet to set aside an award on the ground of breach of natural justice.
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 requirements an applicant must meet to set aside an award on the ground of breach of natural justice.
Coal & Oil Co LLC v GHCL Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 3 SLR 154	Singapore	Cited for the high threshold required to find a breach of natural justice, emphasizing that successful challenges are rare and limited to egregious cases.
TMM Division Maritima SA de CV v Pacific Richfield Marine Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2013] 4 SLR 972	Singapore	Cited for the high threshold required to find a breach of natural justice, emphasizing that successful challenges are rare and limited to egregious cases.
JVL Agro Industries Ltd v Agritrade International Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2016] 4 SLR 768	Singapore	Cited for the subsidiary aspects of the right to be heard, including notice of the case and the opportunity to present evidence and legal arguments.
DBL v DBM	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2024] 4 SLR 979	Singapore	Cited for the subsidiary aspects of the right to be heard, including notice of the case and the opportunity to present evidence and legal arguments.
AKN and another v ALC and others and other appeals	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 3 SLR 488	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a fair hearing includes the right to be heard on, and have the tribunal consider, all pleaded issues.
Swire Shipping Pte Ltd v Ace Exim Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2024] 5 SLR 706	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a party cannot complain about a breach of natural justice after receiving an adverse award if they conducted themselves as content to proceed with the arbitration.
De Beers UK Ltd v Atos Origin IT Services UK Ltd	Technology and Construction Court	No	[2010] EWHC 3276 (TCC)	England and Wales	Cited by the claimant for support on the definition of 'wilful misconduct', but the Tribunal's reliance on it was disputed.
Haide Building Materials Co Ltd v Ship Recycling Investments Inc	High Court	Yes	[2024] SGHC 222	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an arbitral tribunal is the master of the proceedings before it and is given wide discretion in how it controls the same.
Anwar Siraj and another v Ting Kang Chung and another	High Court	Yes	[2003] 2 SLR(R) 287	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an arbitrator is master of his own procedure and has a wide discretionary power to conduct the arbitration proceedings in the way he sees fit, so long as what he is doing is not manifestly unfair or contrary to natural justice.
BLC and others v BLB and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 4 SLR 79	Singapore	Cited for the principle that courts will not allow setting aside applications to be abused by a party who, with the benefit of hindsight, wishes that it had presented its case in a different way or had taken certain strategic decisions differently.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court 2021

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
International Arbitration Act 1994	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Arbitration
Natural Justice
Setting Aside
International Arbitration Act
Singapore International Arbitration Centre
UNCITRAL Model Law
Procedural Timetable
Memorandum of Issues
Wilful Misconduct

15.2 Keywords

Arbitration
Setting Aside
Breach of Natural Justice
Singapore
International Arbitration

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Arbitration	95
Recourse against award	90
Setting aside	90
Natural justice	85
International Commercial Arbitration	70
Jurisdiction	30

16. Subjects

Arbitration
Breach of Contract
Civil Procedure