Hong Huat Development Co (Pte) Ltd v Hiap Hong & Company Pte Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Woo Bih Li JC
• Judgment Date: 04 August 2000
• Neutral Citation: [2000] SGHC 160
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 13 March 2013
• Year: 2000
• Plaintiff Counsel: Lawrence Teh (Rodyk & Davidson)
• Defendant Counsel: John Chung (Khattar Wong & Partners) and Sharon Tay (Donaldson & Burkinshaw)
• Citation: [2000] SGHC 160

JUDGMENT:

Grounds of Decision on Further Arguments and on Costs

1 On 6 July 2000, I delivered my Judgment but reserved the question of costs at the request of the Appellants.

2 The Appellants then sought further arguments on item (e) (as defined in my Judgment) and, as regards costs, they said they would ask for variation of the Arbitrator’s award on costs as well.

3 I heard further arguments on item (e) and maintained that the arbitrator’s award on item (e) was to remain.

4 This was because even if his award on item (e) was made because of a misapprehension of a legal principle, which principle was determined by me, it did not necessarily follow that his conclusion was wrong.

5 It was not seriously disputed that the amount comprised in item (e) was paid back by the Respondents to the Appellants who had complained that it was an over-certified sum in a certificate. However, there was no evidence that the certificate was amended to take into account this payment, or that the arbitrator had factored this payment in his decision of the total amount under the final accounts and the balance due to the Respondents.

6 Furthermore, the Appellants themselves did not want item (e) to be remitted back to the arbitrator presumably because of the extraordinarily long delay he had taken to publish his award.

7 In the circumstances, I did not think that I should interfere with his award on item (e).

8 As for costs, Mr Chung argued that the court had no power to vary this part of the award and that the court could only remit this part of the award back to the arbitrator.

9 He cited a passage from The Law and Practice of Commercial Arbitration in England 2^nd Ed by Mustill and Boyd at p 398:

‘First, the Court of Appeal has power to substitute its own order as to costs for that of the trial judge. This the High Court cannot do in relation to the order of an arbitrator. It can only remit the award for reconsideration¹⁵, unless the parties empower it by consent to direct how the costs of the award should be borne¹⁶.’

10 The case cited in footnote 15 is Anglo-Saxon Petroleum v Adamastos Shipping Co Ltd (1957) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 73.

11 However Mr Chung did not cite this case to me. Instead he cited Tramountana Armadora S.A. v Atlantic Shipping Co S.A. (1978) 1 Lloyd’s Law Reports 391 at 396 and 398 and Demolition & Construction Company Ltd v Kent River Board (1963) 2 Lloyd’s Law Reports 7 at p 8.

12 Mr Teh cited The Law and Practice Relating to Appeals from...