Amoe Pte Ltd v Otto Marine Ltd

Judgment Date11 November 2013
Date11 November 2013
Docket NumberSuit No 224 of 2013 (Registrar's Appeal No 201 of 2013)
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Amoe Pte Ltd
Plaintiff
and
Otto Marine Ltd
Defendant

Lee Seiu Kin J

Suit No 224 of 2013 (Registrar's Appeal No 201 of 2013)

High Court

Civil Procedure—Stay of proceedings—Notice to produce documents referred to in pleadings—Whether filing of notice to produce documents referred to in pleadings a ‘step in the proceedings’ under s 6 (1) Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 2002 Rev Ed) —Section 6 (1) Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 2002 Rev Ed)

The plaintiff was engaged by the defendant pursuant to a subcontractor work order (‘the Work Order’) to provide certain services with regard to a shipbuilding project. A dispute arose as to payment and on 20 March 2013, the plaintiff sued the defendant for moneys allegedly due under the Work Order. On 25 March 2013, the defendant entered an appearance but did not file its defence. Instead on 3 April 2013, it filed in court and served on the plaintiff a document entitled ‘Notice to Produce Documents Referred to in Pleadings’ (‘the Notice to Produce’), which requested inspection of certain documents listed therein including the reverse side of the Work Order.

The plaintiff allowed the defendant to take copies of the requested documents. On 22 April 2013, the defendant applied for proceedings to be stayed in favour of arbitration on the grounds that the reverse side of the Work Order contained a binding arbitration clause that applied to their dispute. On 12 June 2013, the assistant registrar who heard the matter declined to grant a stay on the grounds that the Notice to Produce was akin to an application for discovery which was a step in the proceedings within the meaning of s 6 (1) of the Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 2002 Rev Ed) and the defendant was therefore disentitled from seeking a stay. The defendant appealed.

Held, allowing the appeal and staying the proceedings:

(1) The Notice to Produce was filed and served under O 24 r 10 (1) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) but it was not akin to an application for discovery of documents. What was relevant was whether the filing of the Notice to Produce was, in the circumstances of the present case, deemed to be a step in the proceedings: at [10] and [12] .

(2) If a party filed and served a notice to produce under O 24 r 10 for inspection of documents referenced in pleadings, and had done so to ascertain the nature of the claim before it to see if arbitration was an option, this act by itself was not a step in the proceedings, even without an express reservation of the right to seek a stay: at [14] .

(3) In the circumstances of this case and taking into account the contents of the Notice to Produce and the correspondences between the parties that were exhibited, the defendant was genuinely seeking to investigate the nature of the contractual arrangements under which the plaintiff was making its claim in court. The evidence showed that once it obtained the reverse side of the Work Order, and was made cognisant of the terms and conditions inscribed thereon, it sought with due and reasonable speed to assert its right to seek a stay. The defendant's act of issuing the Notice to Produce was therefore not a step in the proceedings within the meaning of s 6 (1) of the Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 2002 Rev Ed): at [15] , [19] and [20] .

Capital Trust Investments Ltd v Radio Design TJ AB [2002] 2 All ER 159 (refd)

Carona Holdings Pte Ltd v Go Go Delicacy Pte Ltd [2008] 4 SLR (R) 460; [2008] 4 SLR 460 (folld)

Londonderry Port and Harbour Commissioners, The v W S Atkins Consultants Ltd [2011] NIQB 74 (folld)

Parker, Gaines & Co Ltd v Turpin [1918] 1 KB 358 (refd)

Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 2002 Rev Ed) s 6 (1) (consd)

Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 24 r 10 (consd) ;O 24 r 10 (1) , O 24 r 10 (2) , O 24 r 11 (1)

Arbitration Act 1889 (c 49) (UK) s 4

Leona Wong Yoke Cheng (Allen & Gledhill LLP) for the plaintiff

Ramachandran Doraisamy Raghunath (Selvam LLC) for the defendant.

Judgment reserved.

Lee Seiu Kin J

1 This is an appeal by the defendant (‘Otto Marine’) against the assistant registrar's dismissal of its application to stay the present proceedings in favour of arbitration. The key issue before me is whether Otto Marine, by filing and serving a notice to produce documents referred to in pleadings, has taken a step in the proceedings within the meaning of s 6 (1) of the Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 2002 Rev Ed) (‘the Act’) so as to disentitle it from seeking a stay.

Background

2 Otto Marine engaged the plaintiff (‘Amoe’) pursuant to a subcontractor work order dated 6 August 2010 (‘the Work Order’) to provide general management support, commissioning, testing and inspections of a vessel that was being built in a shipyard in Batam, Indonesia. On 20 March 2013, Amoe sued Otto Marine in Suit No 224 of 2013 to recover moneys allegedly due under the Work Order. On 25 March 2013, Otto Marine entered appearance in the action. It did not subsequently enter its defence or file any other pleadings. Instead, on 3 April 2013 it filed in court and served on Amoe a document entitled ‘Notice to Produce Documents Referred to in Pleadings’ (‘the Notice to Produce’). The Notice to Produce ran to four pages and requested the production of 18 items of documents referred to in various paragraphs of the statement of claim (‘SOC’). This included the front and reverse sides of the Work Order.

3 On 8 April 2013, Amoe responded by filing a document entitled ‘Notice Where Documents May Be Inspected’ to the effect that the documents listed in the Notice to Produce could be inspected at the offices of its solicitors on 15 April 2013 by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • PT Selecta Bestama v Sin Huat Huat Marine Transportation Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 18 November 2015
    ...of the defendant’s right to rely on the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the contract. The AR cited Amoe Pte Ltd v Otto Marine Ltd [2014] 1 SLR 724, in which Lee Seiu Kin J held (at [20]) that the issuance of a Notice to Produce did not constitute a submission to jurisdiction, and did not a......
  • PT Selecta Bestama v Sin Huat Huat Marine Transportation Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 18 November 2015
    ...of the defendant’s right to rely on the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the contract. The AR cited Amoe Pte Ltd v Otto Marine Ltd [2014] 1 SLR 724, in which Lee Seiu Kin J held (at [20]) that the issuance of a Notice to Produce did not constitute a submission to jurisdiction, and did not a......
  • PT Selecta Bestama v Sin Huat Huat Marine Transportation Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 30 July 2015
    ...court’s exercise of jurisdiction. I respectfully follow the reasoning and conclusion of Lee Seiu Kin J in Amoe Pte Ltd v Otto Marine Ltd [2014] 1 SLR 724, that where a Notice to Produce documents referenced in the pleadings is taken out to ascertain or genuinely investigate the nature of th......
2 books & journal articles
  • Civil Procedure
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2014, December 2014
    • 1 December 2014
    ...are present in a tick the boxes approach. Instead, the emphasis should be on a practical approach. 8.88 In Amoe Pte Ltd v Otto Marine Ltd[2014] 1 SLR 724 the High Court allowed an appeal against a decision that a notice to produce is a step in the proceedings within the meaning of s 6(1) of......
  • A STEP OR A MISSTEP IN COURT
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2017, December 2017
    • 1 December 2017
    ...Pte Ltd[2017] 1 SLR 312 at [78]. 21 See L Capital Jones Ltd v Maniach Pte Ltd[2017] 1 SLR 312 at [78]. 22Amoe Pte Ltd v Otto Marine Ltd[2014] 1 SLR 724 at [7]. 23Amoe Pte Ltd v Otto Marine Ltd[2014] 1 SLR 724 at [19]. 24Chai Cher Watt v SDL Technologies Pte Ltd[2012] 1 SLR 152 at [33]–[34].......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT