Coal & Oil Co LLC v GHCL Ltd
Judge | Steven Chong J |
Judgment Date | 12 March 2015 |
Neutral Citation | [2015] SGHC 65 |
Citation | [2015] SGHC 65 |
Hearing Date | 20 January 2015 |
Published date | 16 March 2015 |
Subject Matter | Recourse against award,Setting aside,Award,Arbitration |
Docket Number | Originating Summons No 538 of 2014 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Gabriel Peter and Chong En Lai (Gabriel Law Corporation) |
Defendant Counsel | Joseph Lopez, Khushboo Hashu Shahdadpuri and Chong Li Tang (Joseph Lopez LLP) |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
In the last few decades, international arbitration has emerged as an attractive and, in certain industries, the preferred form of dispute resolution. Parties opt for arbitration for various tactical, strategic, and commercial reasons including the flexibility to select the tribunal who, in their assessment, is best suited to preside over the dispute bearing in mind the complexity of the case. Finality of the arbitral award is also perceived as a significant advantage though it would be fair to say that the perception is viewed less advantageously, after the fact, by the losing party. Curial intervention is therefore available only in limited circumstances, including instances where there has been a breach of natural justice, where the award is tainted by fraud or corruption, or where the award has been made
I have observed a clear trend, in recent times, of parties seeking to set aside adverse arbitral awards on the basis of alleged breaches of natural justice. Many have failed. It is perhaps opportune for me to state that an accusation against a tribunal for committing a breach of natural justice is a serious matter. The tribunal is not able to defend itself and the accusation can have an adverse impact on the arbitrator’s reputation and standing in the arbitration community. The courts take a serious view of such challenges and that is why those which have succeeded are few and far between and limited only to egregious cases where the error is “clear on the face of the record” (see
Parties have nonetheless been creative (though ultimately unsuccessful) in attempting to expand the defined boundaries of the doctrine of breach of natural justice. Some notable examples include an assertion that the tribunal’s decision to close the arbitral proceedings and subsequent refusal to reopen them upon request was a breach of the right to a fair hearing (
The present case represents another novel attempt to set aside an arbitral award. In brief, the plaintiff’s argument is two-fold. First, the plaintiff argues that the Tribunal had breached its
Two general issues arise from these facts. The first is the proper construction of r 27.1; the second is the applicable time limit, if any, for the release of arbitral awards.
Background facts The plaintiff, Coal & Oil Company LLC (“C&O”), is a company registered in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
The defendant, GHCL Limited (“GHCL”), is a company registered in the Republic of India. It was, at the material time, a customer of the plaintiff.
The facts are not in dispute and lie within a narrow compass. On 26 April 2007, the plaintiff signed an agreement to supply between 180,000 and 190,000 Metric Tons (“MT”) of coal to the defendant (“the Agreement”).
Between April 2007 and January 2008, the price of coal rose dramatically and Noble attempted to re-negotiate the price of coal under the Noble Contract. The plaintiff initially resisted this increase as it would affect the profitability of its contract with the defendant but Noble was insistent that the price be increased. This triggered an exchange of correspondence between the plaintiff and the defendant during which the defendant was informed that the plaintiff would not deliver the third shipment (consisting of 70,000 MT of coal) unless a price increase was agreed.
The plaintiff refused to repay the demanded sum and, pursuant to clause 16 of the Agreement, the defendant submitted the dispute to arbitration in Singapore.
The following is a brief chronology of the arbitration:
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
In its Final Award dated 14 March 2014 (“the Award”), the Tribunal found in favour of the defendant and held that the Addendum was vitiated by duress and ought to be side aside. The Tribunal awarded the defendant the sum of $1,295,888 with interest.
On 12 June 2014, the plaintiff filed Originating Summons No 538 of 2014 (“OS 538/2014”), applying under s 24 of the International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed) (“IAA”) to set aside the Award on the following grounds:
The plaintiff also prayed, in the alternative, for a declaration under Art 14(1) of the Model Law that the Tribunal’s mandate had been terminated prior to 14 March 2014 (the date of the issuance of the Award) by reason of the Tribunal’s failure to act without undue delay in declaring the proceedings closed and that, therefore, the Award should be set aside for want of jurisdiction.
At the hearing on 20 January 2015, Mr Peter Gabriel (“Mr Gabriel”), counsel for the plaintiff, informed me that the plaintiff would not be proceeding with the alternative prayer.
To continue reading
Request your trial