Prometheus Marine Pte Ltd v King, Ann Rita
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Sundaresh Menon CJ,Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA,Steven Chong JA |
Judgment Date | 24 October 2017 |
Neutral Citation | [2017] SGCA 61 |
Published date | 28 October 2017 |
Date | 24 October 2017 |
Year | 2017 |
Hearing Date | 04 September 2017 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Arvind Daas Naaidu (Arvind Law LLC) |
Defendant Counsel | and Murali Rajaram and Tan Kai Ning Claire (Straits Law Practice LLC) |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Citation | [2017] SGCA 61 |
Docket Number | Civil Appeals Nos 181 and 182 of 2016; Summonses Nos 45 and 46 of 2017 |
These appeals arose out of two applications made by Prometheus Marine Pte Ltd (“the Appellant”) to set aside the arbitration award dated 5 April 2016 (“the Award”) issued in ARB No 24 of 2013 (“the Arbitration”), which was administered by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”). The Judicial Commissioner (“the Judge”) who heard the applications took the view that there were no grounds to set aside the Award and dismissed both applications. Having considered the oral and written arguments of the parties, we agreed with the learned Judge’s decision and dismissed the appeals. We delivered our oral grounds at the hearing, but having regard to the importance of the issues raised and the unsatisfactory manner in which the appeals were conducted, we now set out the fuller grounds for our decision.
The appeals and applications before us The grounds for the Judge’s decision can be found in
The Appellant is a company incorporated in Singapore, which is primarily involved in the marine engineering and yacht brokerage business. It is also involved in the business of yacht charter, yacht support and management and marina development.
The respondent in the Appeals, Mrs Ann Rita King (“the Respondent”), is a British national who is the managing director of a company based in Singapore with regional interests.
The Respondent contracted to purchase a yacht, a Clipper Cardova 60 (Hull #5) (“the Yacht”), later named the
The Yacht was manufactured by Clipper Motor Yachts International Ltd (“Clipper”), a company incorporated in Belize, and its parts were assembled by Ningbo FuHua Shipbuilding Industry Co Ltd (“the Shipyard”), a company incorporated in China. The Yacht was due to be delivered to the Respondent in June 2012. On 10 June 2012, while being loaded onto a barge at the Shipyard for shipment to Singapore, the Yacht was dropped. This caused extensive damage to the Yacht.
The Respondent hired a maritime surveyor, Mr Donald Richard Lamble (“Lamble”), to survey the Yacht. Lamble produced a report that identified a preliminary list of 19 items of damage (“the Lamble Report”). The parties reached an oral agreement that the Appellant would repair the Yacht at its own cost and to Lamble’s satisfaction (“the Repair Contract”). The Appellant then carried out repairs to the Yacht that purportedly remedied the damage enumerated in the Lamble Report.
On 25 July 2012, the Yacht was delivered to the Respondent purportedly repaired. Lamble inspected the Yacht again and prepared another report enumerating 120 defects (“the Lamble Defects List”). Dissatisfied with the repairs done by the Appellant, the Respondent brought the Yacht to Phuket, Thailand on 24 August 2012 for further assessment and repairs at her own cost. At the request of the Respondent, Siam Surveyors International surveyed the Yacht on 7 and 8 September 2012 and prepared a comprehensive inspection report of the Yacht (“the Siam Surveyors Report”). The Siam Surveyors Report identified an additional 109 defects and concluded that the Yacht:
The Respondent commenced proceedings against the Appellant by way of a Notice of Arbitration dated 23 January 2013 seeking a full refund of the purchase price of the Yacht as well as damages and/or the cost of repairs. The sole arbitrator (“the Arbitrator”) was appointed by consent.
The pleadings The Respondent claimed that the parties had agreed on, among others, the following:
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
The Respondent pleaded that the Residence Term, the European Compliance Term and the Marine Standards Term (“the Oral Terms”) were agreed on in the course of discussions between the parties around mid-2010. The Respondent pleaded that the Appellant had breached all the above express and/or implied terms of the Contract (except for the Specifications Term, the breach of which was not expressly pleaded, though as noted below at [59]-[60] this was not material). The Respondent also claimed that the Appellant had made false representations regarding the Oral Terms, thereby inducing the Respondent to enter into the Contract. The Respondent sought damages arising from the Appellant’s breaches of the Contract and the Appellant’s misrepresentations.
The Respondent further pleaded that the parties had entered into the Repair Contract (see [6] above) sometime in or around late June 2012, and that too had been breached because the Appellant failed to repair the Yacht to the satisfaction of Lamble, and also failed to conduct sea trials to the satisfaction of Lamble prior to the delivery of the Yacht. The Respondent therefore also sought damages arising from the breach of the Repair Contract.
The Appellant contended that it was a “distributor/broker for yachts built by Clipper and other builders” in its Statement of Defence. Paragraph 11 of the Respondent’s Statement of Claim, in which it was pleaded that “[the Appellant] is the vendor of the
The parties also agreed on a Statement of Issues, which was reproduced in full by the Arbitrator in the Award (at [89]), and served as the framework around which the Arbitrator organized his findings.
The AwardAt the outset, the Arbitrator identified the SIAC Rules and Singapore law as the applicable rules and law governing the arbitration, pursuant to cll 12 and 14 of the Contract (at [11] of the Award). He did not state the applicable statute under Singapore law for the Arbitration, that is to say, whether it was the IAA or the AA. The effect of this omission became an issue in the applications before the Judge and in these appeals.
The Arbitrator noted that the Appellant did not specifically plead that it was only Clipper’s agent and not the seller under the Contract, and that this point was not identified in the Statement of Issues (at [90] of the Award). Nevertheless, the Arbitrator first considered the Appellant’s claim that it was not the seller of the Yacht under the Contract, because he recognized that this was a “threshold issue” which had an impact on his jurisdiction (at [90] of the Award). The Arbitrator held that the Appellant was not acting as an agent of Clipper. He arrived at this conclusion after having considered a number of matters including the testimonies of witnesses, the letter from Clipper’s solicitors taking the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
The Republic of India v Deutsche Telekom AG
...Ltd v De Savoye [1990] 3 SCR 1077 (refd) PAO Tatneft v Ukraine [2021] 1 WLR 1123 (refd) Prometheus Marine Pte Ltd v King, Ann Rita [2018] 1 SLR 1 (refd) PT First Media TBK v Astro Nusantara International BV [2014] 1 SLR 372 (folld) Ramesh Vangal v Indian Overseas Bank [2023] 2 SLR 261 (refd......
-
Boi v Boj
...would be formed during such preparations: see the decision of this Court in Prometheus Marine Pte Ltd v King, Ann Rita and another appeal [2018] 1 SLR 1 (“Prometheus”) at [39]. The court in Prometheus also noted that an open mind does not mean an empty mind and it is consistent with the jud......
-
Bintai Kindenko Pte Ltd v Samsung C&T Corporation
...the applicant for the whole or any part of the relevant costs? See Prometheus Marine Pte Ltd v King, Ann Rita and another appeal [2018] 1 SLR 1 (“Prometheus”) at [75], citing Ho Kon Kim v Lim Gek Kim Betsy and others and another appeal [2001] 3 SLR(R) 220 at [58] and Tang Liang Hong v Lee K......
-
The Republic of India v Deutsche Telekom AG
...lead to the conclusion that there is simply no award to enforce (see also, Prometheus Marine Pte Ltd v King, Ann Rita and another appeal [2018] 1 SLR 1 at [46]). While Art V(1)(e) does not expressly mention issue estoppel as a ground for refusing recognition/enforcement, it has been noted t......
-
Comment - LAWYER'S RESPONSIBILITY NOT TO PURSUE A CLAIM OR APPLICATION OR APPEAL FAVOURED BY THE CLIENT WHERE THE INTEREST OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE WILL BE COMPROMISED
...1 SLR(R) 753 at [91]. 25 [2008] 1 WLR 1209 at [27]. 26 Law Society of Singapore v Nor'ain bte Abu Bakar [2009] 1 SLR(R) 753 at [91]. 27 [2018] 1 SLR 1. 28 Prometheus Marine Pte Ltd v King, Ann Rita [2018] 1 SLR 1 at [70] and [71]. 29 S 156/1998. 30 Lam Hwa Engineering & Trading Pte Ltd v Ya......
-
Arbitration
...[47]. 35 PT Prima International 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 ......
-
Arbitration
...Co Ltd v Tornado Consumer Goods Ltd [2017] SGHC 193 at [69]–[70]. 126 [2017] SGHC 36. 127 Prometheus Marine Pte Ltd v King, Ann Rita [2018] 1 SLR 1. 128 Prometheus Marine Pte Ltd v King, Ann Rita [2018] 1 SLR 1 at [44]. 129 Prometheus Marine Pte Ltd v King, Ann Rita [2018] 1 SLR 1 at [46]. ......