PT Sandipala Arthaputra v STMicroelectronics Asia Pacific Pte Ltd and others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: George Wei J
• Judgment Date: 07 August 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] SGHC 191
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Suit No 542 of 2012
• Year: 2017
• Published date: 14 April 2018
• Hearing Date: 01 August 2017
• Plaintiff Counsel: Prem Gurbani, Govintharasah s/o Ramanathan, Sarah Kuek and Kevin Chan (Gurbani & Co LLC)
• Defendant Counsel: Ong Tun Wei Danny, Yam Wern-Jhien, Eugene Ong, Jeremy Gan and Danitza Hon (Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP),Davinder Singh SC, Jaikanth Shankar, Zhuo Jiaxiang, Timothy Lin and Tan Ruo Yu (Drew & Napier LLC)
• Subject Matter: Civil Procedure,Damages,Interest
• Citation: [2017] SGHC 191

George Wei J: Introduction

This action arose out of a contract between the plaintiff, PT Sandipala Arthaputra (“Sandipala”), and the second defendant, Oxel Systems Pte Ltd (“Oxel”), for the supply of microchips (“chips”) from the first defendant, STMicroelectronics Asia Pacific Pte Ltd (“ST-AP”). In PT Sandipala Arthraputra v STMicroElectronics Asia Pacific Pte Ltd and others [2017] SGHC 102 (“the Judgment”) which sets out the facts of the action in full, I dismissed Sandipala’s claims against the defendants, while allowing Oxel’s counterclaim against Sandipala and the second and third defendants in the counterclaim, Mr Paulus Tannos (“Mr Tannos”) and Ms Catherine Tannos (“Ms Tannos”).

Oxel has requested clarifications with regard to [284(c)] of the Judgment, in which I awarded Oxel interest in respect of the other awards it was entitled to. These clarifications relate to details such as the dates from which the awarded sums of interest are to run. All parties attended before me in chambers on 1 August 2017 for a short hearing on this issue, where counsel for Sandipala, Mr Tannos and Ms Tannos confirmed that his clients had no objections to the clarifications proposed by Oxel. Accordingly, I provide the necessary clarifications in this supplemental judgment.

Orders made in the Judgment

I set out the relevant parts in [284(b)-(c)] of the Judgment here: (b) Oxel’s counterclaim against Sandipala as well as its counterclaim against Sandipala, Mr Tannos and Ms Tannos are allowed as follows: (i) Oxel is entitled to the price of the 4,805,875 chips that were delivered in the fifth to ninth shipments. Oxel is also entitled to the price of the 6,457,414 chips in the tenth to 15th shipments (amounting to 11,263,289 chips altogether). The total award for price is assessed at US$5,406,378.72. (ii) Oxel is entitled to US$279,813.36 being the down payment in respect of 2,331,778 chips. (iii) Oxel is entitled to US$15,960,654.65 being the losses suffered by Oxel in respect of the payments made to Danatel and Logii. (iv) Oxel is entitled to a pro-rated sum for its loss of profits for the remaining 87,668,222 chips amounting to US$175,336.44.

…

(c) Oxel is entitled to interest as follows: (i) Interest at the contractual rate of 1.5% per month for the price of the chips that was assessed at US$5,406,378.72 and the down payments assessed at US$279,813.36. (ii) Interest at the usual rate for the other awards. Clarifications on interest to be paid to Oxel at the contractual rate

At [284(c)(i)] of the Judgment, I awarded Oxel interest “at the contractual rate of 1.5% per month for the price of the chips that was assessed at US$5,406,378.72 and the down payments assessed at US$279,813.36.” This contractual rate was based on Oxel’s standard terms and conditions, incorporated by reference into the agreement of 9 November 2011 under which Oxel was to supply 100m chips to Sandipala (“the Agreement”) (see [34] of the Judgment). Oxel’s standard terms and conditions provided that all invoiced sums were due and payable to Oxel by the 30th day following the dates of the invoices, and that interest would be imposed on all late payments at a rate of 1.5% per month.

Interest in respect of the US$5,406,378.72 award

My award of US$5,406,378.72 to Oxel was in respect...