Cdm and Another v Cdp
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Steven Chong JCA,Chao Hick Tin SJ,Judith Prakash JCA |
Judgment Date | 05 May 2021 |
Neutral Citation | [2021] SGCA 45 |
Published date | 08 May 2021 |
Year | 2021 |
Hearing Date | 08 April 2021 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Navinder Singh and Farah Nazura Binte Zainudin (KSCGP Juris LLP) |
Citation | [2021] SGCA 45 |
Defendant Counsel | Daniel Chia Hsiung Wen and Ker Yanguang (Ke Yanguang) (Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC) |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Civil Appeal No 53 of 2020 |
It is axiomatic that the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal is, for the most part, defined by the pleadings filed in the arbitration. The arbitral process, generally speaking, commences with a Notice of Arbitration setting out the nature and scope of the dispute. This would typically be followed by the Statement of Claim shortly after the constitution of the tribunal. While the Notice of Arbitration and the Statement of Claim lay out the dispute from the claimant’s perspective, it would be incorrect to treat them as
Whether the scope of the dispute and hence the jurisdiction of the tribunal extends beyond the matters referred to in the Notice of Arbitration and the Statement of Claim must depend on the subsequent pleadings. Indeed, this was precisely brought to the fore by the arbitration between the parties to this appeal (the “Arbitration”). While the respondent, which was the claimant in the Arbitration, had not raised arguments in relation to the “second launch” of a vessel, the appellants, in anticipation that the point might subsequently be raised, referred to the “second launch” and expressly denied it in their Defence and Counterclaim. Thereafter, the issue in relation to the “second launch” was featured in the subsequent pleadings, the agreed list of issues (“ALOI”), the evidence in the Arbitration, and the parties’ respective submissions.
Proceeding on the flawed premise that the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal (the “Tribunal”) was somehow defined
We heard and dismissed the appeal on 8 April 2021 with brief grounds. In our detailed grounds below, we also take the opportunity to address the point as to whether we should adopt the position of the Hong Kong courts in awarding costs on an indemnity basis as the
The facts have already been eloquently set out in the decision of the Judge below (the “Judge”), and we do not propose to repeat them in any great detail. Briefly, the appellants and the respondent entered into the following agreements on 9 June 2013:
After having entered into the Contract, the parties entered into a number of addenda to the contract. Addendum No. 2 was entered into on 24 September 2014. Of central importance to the present appeal is Article 6(d) of Addendum No. 2, which varied the payment term in the Contract such that 10% of the total contract sum (the “Fourth Instalment”) would become payable upon “launching and receipt of [the] invoice issued by the [builder,
On 20 January 2015, the respondent purported to launch the Hull into the water for the purposes of Art 6(d) of Addendum No. 2. That same day, the first appellant’s project manager emailed the respondent stating,
On 3 May 2015, the Hull was launched (the “second launch”). On 5 May 2015, the respondent demanded payment of the Fourth Instalment. As payment continued to be withheld, the respondent issued a default notice on 3 August 2016 pursuant to the terms of the Guarantee requesting that the appellants pay the Fourth Instalment. As payment was still not forthcoming, the respondent commenced the Arbitration against the appellants. The Notice of Arbitration was filed on 26 September 2016. Following the usual exchange of pleadings, an oral hearing took place between 21 and 25 May 2018, where both sides called factual and expert witnesses. Thereafter, detailed written closing and reply submissions were exchanged.
The central issue in question at the Arbitration was, for present purposes, whether the respondent (the claimant in the Arbitration) was entitled to the Fourth Instalment. The Tribunal found that the respondent, first appellant, and the relevant ship classification society had collectively given their approval for the launch of the Hull, with the first appellant having given its approval on 28 April 2015 for the second launch on 3 May 2015. The Tribunal found that the minutes of the Construction and Progress Meetings that took place on 7 and 28 April 2015 recorded that the respondent had resolved all the remaining items which the first appellant required the respondent to remedy before the Hull was considered to be in “[l]aunching condition”. The Tribunal also found that the minutes recorded the first appellant’s clear acceptance that the outstanding requirements had been met. By its acceptance that the outstanding issues had been resolved, the Tribunal found that the first appellant had also given its approval for the second launch. Even if the minutes did not show that the first appellant had given its
The Tribunal thus found that there was no valid reason for the appellants to withhold payment of the Fourth Instalment. Accordingly, in its award (the “Award”), the Tribunal ordered the appellants to,
The appellants then applied to set aside the part of the Award relating to the respondent’s claim for the Fourth Instalment under the Contract. The grounds the appellants relied on were twofold.
First, relying on Article 34(2)
Second, the appellants alleged that the Award had been made in breach of the right to present their case, in violation of Article 34(2)
The Judge dismissed all of the appellants’ attempts to impugn the Award in their entirety, finding that they were not borne out by the record from the Arbitration. Dissatisfied, the appellants appealed.
On appeal, the appellants abandoned most of their arguments below. Instead, the appellants’ remaining submissions were twofold:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Asiana Airlines, Inc v Gate Gourmet Korea Co, Ltd
...not the end of the matter. Other considerations may show a different picture. As the Court of Appeal observed in CDM and another v CDP [2021] 2 SLR 235 at [18], the question of what matters are within the scope of the parties’ submission to arbitration is answerable by reference to five sou......
-
COT v COU and others and other appeals
...the parties’ pleadings, agreed list of issues, opening statements, evidence adduced, and closing submissions (CDM and another v CDP [2021] 2 SLR 235 at [18]). In CKH v CKG and another matter [2022] 2 SLR 1, this court made clear at [16] that the exercise of determining whether a matter fall......
-
CFJ and another v CFL and another and other matters
...by a challenge on the other, for instance, when the tribunal is alleged to have breached natural justice because it has exceeded jurisdiction: CDM and another v CDP [2021] 2 SLR 235 (“CDM”) at [16]. Indeed, as regards several of the challenges, this case is similar. However, for good order,......
-
CJA v CIZ
...of Article 12 to the appellant’s witnesses or test it under cross-examination. To take reference from the analysis of this court in CDM v CDP [2021] 2 SLR 235 (“CDM”), if it is found that the Tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction in taking a certain view of the Success Fee arrangement su......
-
Pleading Points In International Arbitration: Substance Over Form?
...and within the scope of parties' submissions, there are 'five sources' commonly considered by Singaporean courts as outlined in CDM v CDP [2021] SGCA 45: (i) the parties' pleadings; (ii) any agreed list of issues; (iii) opening statements; (iv) evidence adduced; and (v) closing A disputed i......
-
Civil Procedure
...Co Ltd v Opus Tiger 1 Pte Ltd [2021] SGCA 109 at [29]. 114 Shanghai Shipyard Co Ltd v Opus Tiger 1 Pte Ltd [2021] SGCA 109 at [27]. 115 [2021] 2 SLR 235. 116 Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed. CDM v CDP [2021] 2 SLR 235 at [11]–[13]. 117 CDM v CDP [2021] 2 SLR 235 at [4] and [14]. 118 CDM v CDP [2021] ......
-
Arbitration
...Development v Kempinski Hotels SA [2012] 4 SLR 98 at [47]. 36 Prometheus Marine Pte Ltd v King, Ann Rita [2018] 1 SLR 1 at [58]. 37 [2021] 2 SLR 235. 38 [2021] SGHC 178. 39 CIZ v CJA [2021] SGHC 178 at [36]. 40 CIZ v CJA [2021] SGHC 178 at [59]. 41 CIZ v CJA [2021] SGHC 178 at [56]. 42 [202......