Ahong Construction (S) Pte Ltd v United Boulevard Pte Ltd

• Judge: G P Selvam J
• Judgment Date: 16 June 1993
• Neutral Citation: [1993] SGHC 129
• Citation: [1993] SGHC 129
• Defendant Counsel: Wong Meng Meng and Lan Khoon (Wong Meng Meng & Partners)
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: C S Wu and John Chung (Donaldson & Burkinshaw)
• Date: 16 June 1993
• Docket Number: Originating Motion No 42 of 1992
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Leave to appeal to High Court,Whether question of law arose out of award,Arbitration,s 16(1) Arbitration Act (Cap 10),Recourse against award,Remittance of award to arbitrator for reconsideration,Exercise of court's powers to remit award,Award,Principles applicable

: This judgment is in respect of an arbitration relating to a dispute arising under a building contract between the respondents (`the developers`) and the applicants (`the contractors`) and dated 15 February 1982. The arbitrator made an award on 7 May 1992 (`the award`).

It is not in dispute that the effect of the award was that a sum of S$1,920,420.67 which the developers had deducted from six interim payment certificates issued by the architects had to be refunded by the owners to the contractors. The arbitrator further awarded the sum of $1,260,695 as extra preliminaries recoverable by the contractors. Other sums were also allowed in favour of the contractors. As against these sums, the owners were allowed a sum of $445,882. After set[dash ]off the nett amount which the contractors say was due to them under the award is $3,189,459.61.

The contractors had claimed interest. The arbitrator dealt with the interest claim in these words:

Claim for interest - I have also decided that the claims by both the claimants and the respondents for sums due from one party to the other consequent upon my decisions in this arbitration are to be rejected and disallowed.

Being dissatisfied with the arbitrator`s rejection of the claim for interest, the contractors by OM 42/92 sought the following:

(a) leave to appeal against the rejection of interest on the ground that a question of law arose out of the award;

(b) alternatively, order for the award to be remitted to the arbitrator pursuant to s 16(1) of the Arbitration Act (`the Act`) with a direction that interest should be awarded on the sums due to the contractors under the award at a rate or rates and for a period or periods that the arbitrator may fix.

It was contended for the contractors that the rejection and the disallowance of their claim for interest was a failure by the arbitrator to exercise his discretion judicially and accordingly he had erred in law. It amounted to injustice to the contractors because the arbitrator disregarded the correct principle and practice in regard to the awarding of interest.

Appeal on a question of law

Under the present law the court has no jurisdiction to set aside or remit an award on the ground of errors of fact or law on the face of the award.

An appeal to the High Court from an arbitration award is possible provided a question of law arises out of the award. A question of law means a point of law in controversy which has to be resolved after opposing views and arguments have been considered. It is matter of substance the determination of which will decide the rights between the parties. The point of Iaw must substantially affect the rights of one or more of the parties to the arbitration. If the point of law is settled and not something novel and it is contended that the arbitrator made an error in the application of the law there lies no appeal against that error for there is no question of law which calls for an opinion of the court. An application for leave to appeal on the ground that the appeal invokes a question of law must therefore clearly present the question of law on which the court`s opinion is sought and should also show that it concerns a term of the contract or an...