Antara Koh Pte Ltd v Government of Singapore

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 10 September 1996
• Date: 10 September 1996
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 587 of 1996
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Antara Koh Pte Ltd

Plaintiff

and

Government of Singapore

Defendant

[1996] SGHC 198

Choo Han Teck JC

Originating Summons No 587 of 1996

High Court

Arbitration–Arbitral tribunal–Powers–Breach of arbitrator's direction–Application for extension of arbitrator's powers–Whether arbitrator's powers should be extended–Factors to be considered–Exercise of judicial discretion–Section 32 Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 1985 Rev Ed)

The plaintiff applied for an order that the arbitrator, in an arbitration between the parties, be empowered to continue the proceedings as a judge of the court might do in the event of any default by any party in the arbitration, under s 32 of the Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 1985 Rev Ed) (“the Act”). The power sought included the power to enter default judgment for failure to comply with any direction of the arbitrator. This was on the ground that the defendant in the arbitration had failed to comply with the arbitrator's direction to file and serve a supplemental list of documents and an affidavit verifying the list. By the time of the application hearing, the defendant had filed and served the supplementary list of documents which was, however, deficient in certain respects.

Held, dismissing the application:

(1) Generally the court would not grant an order under s 32 of the Act as a matter of course upon the slightest or a single act of default or breach. The court would have to weigh the nature of the breach, the nature of the arbitration, the conduct of the parties, and the circumstances of the case, and make the order at his discretion. The court may invoke s 32 even if the default had been rectified, where there may be a strong likelihood of future breaches or defaults: at [14] and [15].

(2) In this case, the deficiencies in the supplemental list of documents did not warrant an exercise of the court's discretion to grant the order sought: at [17] and [20].

Waverley S F Ltd v Carnaud Metalbox Engineering Plc [1994] 1 Lloyd's Rep 38 (refd)

Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 1985 Rev Ed)s 32 (consd)

Mohan R Pillay and Ho Kim Weng (Wong Partnership) for the plaintiff

Lee Seiu Kin and Tan Wah Nam (Attorney-General's Chambers) for the defendant.

Choo Han Teck JC

1 This was an application by the plaintiffs for an order that the arbitrator in an arbitration between the plaintiffs and the defendant be empowered to continue the proceedings as a judge of the court might do in the event of any default by any party in the arbitration. The power sought included the power to enter default judgment for failure to comply with any direction of the arbitrator.

2 The application was made under s 32 (1) of the Arbitration Act (Cap 10). That provision reads as follows:

If any party to a reference under an arbitration agreement fails within the time specified in the order or, if no time is so specified within a reasonable time to comply with an order made by the arbitrator or umpire in the course of the reference, then, on the application of the arbitrator or...