Sacofa Sdn Bhd v Super Sea Cable Networks: Arbitration Award Setting Aside & Jurisdiction

Sacofa Sdn Bhd, a Malaysian company, applied to the General Division of the High Court of Singapore to set aside an arbitral award in favor of Super Sea Cable Networks Pte Ltd and SEAX Malaysia Sdn Bhd, the respondents. The dispute arose from a telecommunications project in Malaysia. The claimant argued that the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction and that the award conflicted with Singapore's public policy due to alleged illegality under Malaysian law. The court dismissed the application, finding that the tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction, the award did not conflict with Singapore's public policy, and the claimant was estopped from raising its illegality objections.

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

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Application to set aside an arbitral award. The court dismissed the application, finding no excess of jurisdiction or conflict with public policy.

1.7 Decision Date

27 February 2024

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Sacofa Sdn Bhd	Claimant	Corporation	Application Dismissed	Lost	Koong Len Sheng of David Lim & Partners LLP Joshua Ang Zhao Neng of Hong Zhaoneng Thio Shen Yi SC of TSMP Law Corporation Sherlyn Lim of TSMP Law Corporation Richard Yeoh of David Lim & Partners LLP
Super Sea Cable Networks Pte Ltd	Respondent	Corporation	Application Dismissed	Won	Tan Jun Hong of Calvin Liang LLC Wong Thai Yong of Wong Thai Yong LLC Ng Jern-Fei KC of JFN Chambers LLC
SEAX Malaysia Sdn Bhd	Respondent	Corporation	Application Dismissed	Won	Tan Jun Hong of Calvin Liang LLC Wong Thai Yong of Wong Thai Yong LLC Ng Jern-Fei KC of JFN Chambers LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Wong Li Kok, Alex	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Koong Len Sheng	David Lim & Partners LLP
Joshua Ang Zhao Neng	Hong Zhaoneng
Thio Shen Yi SC	TSMP Law Corporation
Sherlyn Lim	TSMP Law Corporation
Richard Yeoh	David Lim & Partners LLP
Tan Jun Hong	Calvin Liang LLC
Wong Thai Yong	Wong Thai Yong LLC
Ng Jern-Fei KC	JFN Chambers LLC

4. Facts

Sacofa and Super Sea Cable Networks entered into a Strategic Alliance Agreement (SAA) in 2013.
Sacofa and Super Sea Cable Networks entered into a Lease Agreement (LA) in 2019.
A dispute arose when Sacofa re-entered the land leased to Super Sea Cable Networks in October 2022.
Super Sea Cable Networks commenced arbitration against Sacofa pursuant to the SAA.
Sacofa commenced a suit in the Johor Bahru High Court (JBHC) seeking a declaration that the LA is illegal.
The arbitral tribunal ruled in favor of Super Sea Cable Networks, ordering delivery-up of the Built Facilities.
Sacofa applied to set aside the arbitral award, arguing excess of jurisdiction and conflict with public policy.

5. Formal Citations

Sacofa Sdn Bhd v Super Sea Cable Networks Pte Ltd and another, , [2024] SGHC 54
Sacofa Sdn Bhd v Super Sea Cable Networks Pte Ltd and another, Originating Application No 1057 of 2023, Originating Application No 1057 of 2023

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2013-12-20	Strategic Alliance Agreement signed
2019-01-01	Lease Agreement signed
2022-10-15	Claimant re-entered the Demised Land
2022-10-25	Claimant commenced JBHC Suit
2022-11-18	Respondents applied for a stay of the JBHC Suit
2022-12-06	Respondents commenced Arbitration
2023-03-17	Claimant applied for an anti-arbitration injunction in the JBHC Suit
2023-05-07	JBHC dismissed the anti-arbitration injunction application
2023-06-15	Malaysian CA dismissed the motion
2023-07-07	Malaysian CA dismissed the appeal
2023-07-14	Arbitral award No 089 of 2023 was made
2023-08-21	First respondent obtained an order from the KLHC to register and enforce the Award
2023-08-30	Claimant applied to stay the enforcement of the Award
2023-10-13	Claimant brought the application to set aside the Award
2024-01-22	Ad interim order varied to grant the first respondent limited access to the Demised Land
2024-01-23	Hearing date
2024-02-26	Hearing date
2024-02-28	Judgment date

7. Legal Issues

Excess of Jurisdiction
- Outcome: The court held that the tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
  - Scope of arbitration agreement
  - Center of gravity of dispute
  - Proprietary nature of remedy
- Related Cases:
  - [2014] 3 SLR 1217
  - [2010] 2 SLR 821
  - [2021] 3 SLR 1422
Public Policy
- Outcome: The court held that the award was not in conflict with Singapore's public policy.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Conflict with foreign law
  - Breach of Singapore public policy
  - Illegality under Malaysian law
- Related Cases:
  - [2020] 5 SLR 184
  - [2021] 3 SLR 22
Transnational Issue Estoppel
- Outcome: The court held that transnational issue estoppel applied to the claimant's illegality objections but not to the jurisdictional objections.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Finality of foreign judgment
  - Commonality of parties
  - Identity of subject matter
- Related Cases:
  - [2023] SGCA(I) 10

8. Remedies Sought

Setting aside of arbitral award

9. Cause of Actions

Conversion

10. Practice Areas

Arbitration
Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Telecommunications

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Oei Hong Leong v Goldman Sachs International	High Court	Yes	[2014] 3 SLR 1217	Singapore	Cited for the principle of determining the center of gravity of a dispute when competing dispute resolution clauses exist.
Transocean Offshore International Ventures Ltd v Burgundy Global Exploration Corp	High Court	Yes	[2010] 2 SLR 821	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a claim should be subject to the dispute resolution regime of the agreement with which it is more closely connected.
Silverlink Resorts Ltd v MS First Capital Insurance Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2021] 3 SLR 1422	Singapore	Cited for the principle of interpreting dispute resolution clauses to determine the parties' objective intention.
PT Thiess Contractors Indonesia v PT Kaltim Prima Coal	High Court of Justice	Yes	[2011] EWHC 1842 (Comm)	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that courts should give effect to parties' agreements even if it results in fragmentation of dispute resolution.
CRW Joint Operation v PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero) TBK	High Court	No	[2011] 4 SLR 305	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an error of law is not a basis for setting aside an arbitral award.
CBX v CBZ	Singapore International Commercial Court	Yes	[2020] 5 SLR 184	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the issue of foreign public policy is not a matter that Singapore courts can decide of its own accord and without evidence.
Gokul Patnaik v Nine Rivers Capital Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2021] 3 SLR 22	Singapore	Cited for the test of whether upholding an arbitral award would shock the conscience or violate basic notions of morality and justice.
AKN and another v ALC and others and other appeals	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2016] 1 SLR 966	Singapore	Cited for the principle of res judicata in arbitration.
The Republic of India v Deutsche Telekom AG	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2023] SGCA(I) 10	Singapore	Cited for the doctrine of transnational issue estoppel.
Humpuss Sea Transport Pte Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) v PT Humpuss Intermoda Transportasi TBK and another	High Court	Yes	[2016] 5 SLR 1322	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a foreign judgment is final even if subject to appeal.
Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck and others	High Court	Yes	[2007] 1 SLRI 453	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court does not take a narrow view of the requirement of commonality of parties.
BAZ v BBA	High Court	Yes	[2020] 5 SLR 266	Singapore	Cited for the principle of primacy of the seat court.
Morguard Investments Ltd v De Savoye	Supreme Court	Yes	[1990] 3 SCR 1077	Canada	Cited for the principle of comity.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Communications and Multimedia (Licensing) Regulations 2000 (PU(A) 129/2000) (M’sia)	Malaysia
Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (No 588 of 1998) (M’sia)	Malaysia
Telecommunications Act 1999 (2020 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Arbitration
Strategic Alliance Agreement
Lease Agreement
Excess of Jurisdiction
Public Policy
Transnational Issue Estoppel
Conversion
Built Facilities
Demised Land
Delivery-up

15.2 Keywords

arbitration
setting aside
jurisdiction
public policy
telecommunications
singapore
malaysia

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Arbitration	95
Recourse against award	80
Setting aside	75
Jurisdiction	70
Transnational issue estoppel	70
Estoppel	65
Commercial Disputes	60
Contract Law	50

16. Subjects

Arbitration
Contract Law
Telecommunications Law