CGS v CGT
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Andre Maniam JC |
Judgment Date | 14 September 2020 |
Neutral Citation | [2020] SGHC 183 |
Docket Number | Originating Summons No 1117 of 2019 |
Date | 14 September 2020 |
Published date | 11 December 2020 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Devathas Satianathan, David Isidore Tan Huang Loong and Avinash Vinayak Pradhan (Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP) |
Defendant Counsel | Aaron Lee Teck Chye, Chong Xue Er Cheryl and Chua Xinying (Allen & Gledhill LLP) |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Hearing Date | 19 June 2020 |
Subject Matter | Setting aside,Recourse against award,Arbitration,Award,Rules 2016,Singapore International Arbitration Centre |
How absolute are a party’s rights to decide who will represent it in arbitration, and how it will conduct its case? If a party feels that its rights have been infringed, can it keep silent and complain only if the award goes against it?
In this case, the applicant (the “Claimant” in the arbitration) claimed that it was not allowed to have its general manager act as co-counsel alongside its external legal counsel; it did not complain about this at the time, but applied to set aside the award (the “Award”) made by the arbitral tribunal (the “Tribunal”) thereafter.
The Claimant’s grounds for setting aside the Award were:
The arbitration was subject to the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”) Rules (6th ed, 2016) (the “SIAC Rules”). Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, the SIAC had directed that the arbitration be conducted according to the Expedited Procedure in the SIAC Rules, and the arbitration was so conducted.
When the Claimant commenced arbitration on 14 June 2018, it was represented by legal counsel, who submitted the notice of arbitration on the Claimant’s behalf.
The Claimant ceased to be legally represented on 9 August 2018. According to the Claimant, this was because it wanted to proceed with the arbitration in a cost-effective and efficient manner. Its general manager (“R”) served as one of its party representatives.
On 18 October 2018, a case management conference was held over the telephone. The next day, the Tribunal circulated a draft procedural order,1 paragraph 6 of which provided that “[w]here a Party is represented by Counsel, communications with the Tribunal shall be with Counsel instead of the Party’s representatives.” The Claimant did not raise any issues with that paragraph (although it did comment on other aspects of the draft), and on 30 October 2018, Procedural Order Number 1 (“PO 1”) was issued with paragraph 6 in terms of the draft.2
On 28 January 2019, the Claimant engaged legal counsel (“T”) for the upcoming hearing from 11 to 13 February 2019.
Paragraph 72 of PO 1 provides that “[a]ny Party has leave to apply to the Tribunal on three days’ notice for a variation of this Procedural Order No. 1, giving particulars of the variation sought and the reason for it”. The Claimant, however, never applied to vary paragraph 6 of PO 1. Instead, it waited until
The Claimant complained of the following:
I evaluate these complaints in the following sections:
A party has a common law right to choose his representation in arbitration, although this right can be limited by statute. Thus, for example, “[parties’] common law right to retain whomsoever (from the category of unauthorised persons) they desire or prefer for their legal services in arbitration proceedings in Singapore has … been taken away by the [Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1985 Rev Ed) (the “LPA”)]”:
Since
The respondent however argued that rule 23.1 requires parties to choose between two alternatives:
I did not agree with the respondent on this. In my view, rule 23.1 does allow parties to choose to be represented by
Rule 23.1 uses the term “legal practitioners”. That would not include legally-trained persons in the employ of a party, such as in-house counsel, who would instead be “other authorised representatives” within rule 23.1. If (as the respondent contended) rule 23.1 required a party to choose between “legal practitioners” and “other authorised representatives” (but did not allow a party to choose both), an in-house team could still be assembled comprising legally-qualified and non-legally-qualified party representatives. The SIAC Rules thus do not force a choice between legally-qualified and non-legally-qualified party representatives. If the legally-qualified party representative happens to be a “legal practitioner”, it makes no sense to then exclude all other party representatives. The inclusion of rule 23.1 in the SIAC Rules was meant to promote free choice in this regard, not to restrict it.
The Claimant cited two commentaries by Gary B Born (“Born”) for the proposition that a party’s right to representation in international arbitral proceedings, by lawyers or others, is of fundamental importance: Gary B Born, “Legal Representatives and Professional Responsibility in International Arbitration” in
Born goes on to say that “[m]ost institutional rules recognize the parties’ rights of representation in the arbitral proceedings, either expressly or impliedly providing that a party is entitled to be represented by persons of its own choice”.3 As examples, Born specifically includes,
According to Born, “[s]ome institutional rules either expressly or impliedly provide for the possibility of representation by non-lawyers
As such, rule 23.1 of the SIAC Rules would certainly be interpreted the same way by Born, who is also the President of the SIAC Court of Arbitration. The same interpretation is adopted in Choong, Mangan and Lingard,
Giving rule 23.1 of the SIAC Rules the restrictive interpretation for which the respondent contends would also go against the policy of promoting Singapore as an arbitration centre. In explaining the amendment to the LPA prompted by the
The right to representation is, however, not an absolute one. As Born notes:7
Questions would arise as to the limits of a party’s entitlement to legal counsel of its choice if its preferred counsel were supposedly unable to attend a hearing, or to complete written submissions, in accordance with the parties’ or tribunal’s procedural timetable. Although tribunals often exhibit a degree of flexibility in such circumstances, there are cases where arbitrators will order a hearing to proceed, or a submission to be filed, even if a party’s counsel claims to be unavailable.
These sorts of orders do not,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Twarit Consultancy Services Pte Ltd and another v GPE (India) Ltd and others
...was denied. The plaintiffs submitted that the right to be heard included the right to choose their representation, citing CGS v CGT [2021] 3 SLR 672 at [12],142 and that the refusal of the adjournment impeded their ability to present their case and their right to be heard. More should be sa......
-
Arbitration
...[6]. 37 See para 4.37 above. 38 [2020] 1 SLR 695. 39 [2020] SGHC 23. 40 CBP v CBS [2020] SGHC 23 at [40]. 41 6th Ed, 1 August 2016. 42 [2021] 3 SLR 672. 43 CGS v CGT [2021] 3 SLR 672 at [7]. 44 [2020] SGHC 257. 45 CDX v CDZ [2020] SGHC 257 at [34]. 46 [2020] 4 SLR 183. 47 CEB v CEC [2020] 4......