KSEnergy Services Ltd v BREnergy (M) Sdn Bhd
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Sundaresh Menon CJ |
Judgment Date | 26 February 2014 |
Neutral Citation | [2014] SGCA 16 |
Published date | 07 May 2014 |
Date | 26 February 2014 |
Year | 2014 |
Hearing Date | 25 September 2013 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Alvin Yeo SC, Chan Hock Keng, Alma Yong and Benjamin Fong (WongPartnership LLP) |
Citation | [2014] SGCA 16 |
Defendant Counsel | Philip Jeyaretnam SC, Ling Tien Wah, Koh Kia Jeng, Ng Hui Min and Germaine Tan (Rodyk & Davidson LLP) |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Civil Appeal No 46 of 2013 |
This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court in
This case provides an opportunity to clarify the content of provisions which impose an obligation on a party to exercise “endeavours” in a particular regard (“‘endeavours’ clauses” or “‘endeavours’ obligations” for short). It also illustrates how a party bound by such a provision might satisfy its obligations in the face of dynamic (and often unforeseen) circumstances, unfamiliar settings and sometimes intransigent third parties. “Endeavours” clauses are often found in contracts, but infrequently considered by the courts here. To facilitate our discussion of these clauses, we shall, where appropriate in this judgment, refer to: (a) a party who is bound by such a clause as an “obligor”; (b) a party who is to receive the benefit of such a clause as an “obligee”; and (c) the outcome which the obligor is to exercise “endeavours” to procure as the “contractually-stipulated outcome”.
“Endeavours” clauses are often of considerable importance in commercial settings. As this court noted in
The facts of this case are as follows. BRE is a Malaysian company which provides services in the oil and gas industry. On or around 11 August 2005, BRE submitted a tender to Petronas Carigali Sdn Bhd (“PCSB”) for the provision of a WPU. BRE was supported in this tender submission by an oilfield services provider known as China Oilfield Service Limited (“COSL”), for which it was the exclusive Malaysian representative. The WPU was to be based on an existing design, and was to be constructed by a rig construction company known as RG Petro-Machinery Co Ltd (“RG”). The construction of this WPU will hereafter be referred to as “the WPU project” where appropriate.
BRE’s tender submission was successful. On 21 November 2005, PCSB issued a letter of award to BRE (“the Letter of Award”), and a contract between them (“the PCSB contract”) came into existence. Under the terms of the Letter of Award, the WPU was to be delivered to PCSB in Labuan, East Malaysia, no later than 120 days from the date of award,
KSE is in the business of chartering capital equipment in the oil and gas industry. It would appear that BRE and KSE (collectively referred to hereafter as “the Parties” where appropriate) did not have a pre-existing relationship, and KSE’s involvement in the WPU project was solely the result of LHK’s introduction. The Parties searched for alternative rig builders in October and November 2005, but these efforts came to nought. There was a great demand for rigs at the time, and it was difficult to find a rig builder which could build the WPU within the time frame imposed by PCSB at a viable cost. A rig builder known as Oderco Inc (“Oderco”) was eventually identified by one of KSE’s Middle Eastern contacts sometime in late November 2005 after the Letter of Award was issued. On 29 November 2005, TFG e-mailed LHK to tell him that he had just returned from Oderco’s yard in the United Arab Emirates, and that Oderco had given a quotation with delivery in Abu Dhabi estimated at five months. Other rig builders had estimated delivery within eight to ten months.
On 30 November 2005, BRE’s Chief Executive Officer, Abdul Yazid (“Mr Yazid”), wrote to PCSB. He informed PCSB that RG was no longer involved in the WPU project and nominated Oderco as an alternative rig builder. PCSB was assured that the WPU would be constructed according to the specifications in the tender, and was also informed that construction and delivery would take six months. PCSB replied on 8 December 2005 acceding to the variation of the deadline for delivery to 180 days from 21 November 2005,
The pressure of time appears to have been a major concern for the Parties right from the outset, as the correspondence between them indicates unease by both of them about the short time frame for completing the WPU as well as the liquidated damages which PCSB was entitled to impose under the PCSB contract. Nevertheless, the Parties were committed to pursuing the WPU project and entered into a joint venture agreement (“the JVA”) on 13 December 2005. The structure of their relationship was described in the preamble to the JVA as follows:1
…
Under clause 3 of the JVA, the first order of business for the Parties was to secure the incorporation of the joint venture company mentioned in the preamble to the JVA, BR Offshore Services Ltd (“BRO”). The Parties defined the incorporation of BRO as “Completion”2 in clause 1.1 of the JVA. Under clause 7, KSE was to next proceed to procure financing for BRO to acquire the WPU. Clause 6 sets out the details of the Parties’ subsequent obligations as follows:3
It is this “all reasonable endeavours” provision in clause 6.2 of the JVA that the Parties vigorously join issue over.[emphasis added in bold italics and underlining]
On 18 December 2005, five days after the JVA was entered into, Mr Yazid signed a document (“the Authorisation Document”) authorising KSE to proceed to contract with Oderco for the construction of a WPU with “Delivery – 6 months ex works”.4 On 21 December 2005, KSE entered into a contract with Oderco (“the Oderco contract”). Clause B(3) of the Oderco contract provided that the time of shipment of the WPU would be “Ex-works basis within 165 days from date of Contract”,5
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Start Your 7-day Trial
- Kumpulan Prasarana Rakyat Johor Sdn Bhd v Emercon Bina Sdn Bhd and Another Appeal
-
CIS General Insurance Ltd v IBM United Kingdom Ltd
... ... to a flexible and contemporary IT infrastructure would enable it to provide tailored services to its customers and to compete as a market-leading digital and data-based business. Therefore, ... ...
-
Astor Management AG (formerly known as MRI Holding AG) and Another v Atalaya Mining Plc (formerly known as Emed Mining Public Ltd) and Others
...80 This authority was followed by the Singapore Court of Appeal in KS Energy Services Ltd v BR Energy (M) SDN BHD [2014] SGCA 16, [2014] BLR 658, in which a party to a joint venture agreement had undertaken to use all reasonable endeavours to procure that an oil rig was constructed and read......
-
Tai Boon Tatt v. Kuwait Finance House (Malaysia) Berhad
...said Properties to be transferred to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff relied on the case of KS Energy Services Ltd v BR Energy (M) Sdn Bhd [2014] 2 SLR 905 (which was later referred by Court of Appeal’s case of Khong Yoke Bee v Lim Chong Yean & Another Appeal [2018] 4 MLJ 480) on this. This cas......
-
Contract Law
...Pte Ltd [2009] 3 SLR(R) 518; The One Suites Pte Ltd v Pacific Motor Credit (Pte) Ltd [2015] 3 SLR 695. 61 [2019] 1 SLR 414 at [62]. 62 [2014] 2 SLR 905. 63 [2008] 2 SLR(R) 474. KS Energy Services Ltd v BR Energy (M) Sdn Bhd [2014] 2 SLR 905 at [47]. 64 KS Energy Services Ltd v BR Energy (M)......
-
ENDEAVOURS CLAUSES IN SINGAPORE CONTRACT LAW
...1 This article will borrow the terminological framework adopted by the Court of Appeal in KS Energy Services Ltd v BR Energy (M) Sdn Bhd [2014] 2 SLR 905 at [2]: “(a) a party who is bound by such a clause as an ‘obligor’; (b) a party who is to receive the benefit of such a clause as an ‘obl......
-
A NETWORK ANALYSIS OF THE SINGAPORE COURT OF APPEAL'S CITATIONS TO PRECEDENT
...Restaurant Singapore Pte Ltd [2015] 5 SLR 1187 at [41]. 124 Sembcorp Marine Ltd v PPL Holdings Pte Ltd [2013] 4 SLR 193 at [72]. 125 [2014] 2 SLR 905. 126 KS Energy Services Ltd v BR Energy (M) Sdn Bhd [2014] 2 SLR 905 at [44]. 127 Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed. 128 Sembcorp Marine Ltd v PPL Holdings......
-
Building and Construction Law
...and often unforeseen circumstances in which these clauses are expected to operate. 7.3 In KS Energy Services Ltd v BR Energy(M) Sdn Bhd[2014] 2 SLR 905 (KS Energy Services), BR Energy (M) Sdn Bhd (BRE) was contracted to charter an oil rig to Petronas Carigali Sdn Bhd (Petronas). The rig was......