Tang Boon Jek Jeffrey v Tan Poh Leng Stanley

CourtCourt of Three Judges (Singapore)
JudgeChao Hick Tin JA
Judgment Date22 June 2001
Neutral Citation[2001] SGCA 46
Citation[2001] SGCA 46
Subject MatterWhen arbitrator functus officio,Powers,Meaning of "final award",Power to revisit and reverse previous award,UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration,Arbitration,Arbitral tribunal,International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A)
Defendant CounselPhilip Jeyaretnam and Yip Wai Lin Jamie (Helen Yeo & Partners)
Date22 June 2001
Plaintiff CounselAlvin Yeo Khirn Hai SC and Tan Kay Kheng (Wong Partnership)
Docket NumberCivil Appeal No 107 of 2000
Published date19 September 2003


Curia Advisari Vult

1. This appeal raises a general question of law as to the power or jurisdiction of an arbitrator under the International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A) (IAA) and the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the Model Law) to revisit or reverse an award he has made. UNCITRAL is the acronym for United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. The Model Law is set out in the First Schedule to the IAA. At the hearing below, the judge set aside the further award rendered by the arbitrator on the ground that, when he made that further award, he was functus officio.

The facts

2. We shall first briefly set out the background facts giving rise to the application to set aside the further award. In 1994, the appellant, Mr Jeffrey Tang (Tang) and the respondent, Mr Stanley Tan (Tan), together with their respective group of investors, formed a joint venture corporation called Dynasty Pacific Group (DPG). Dispute arose between them which led to litigation in Australia. Pursuant to mediation, a Settlement Agreement dated 24 January 1998, was reached. In the Settlement Agreement there was an arbitration clause for the settlement of disputes arising thereunder. The DPG had basically two main lines of business property development and hotels. Under the Settlement Agreement, the businesses were duly divided between Tang and Tan and their respective associates. It also set out the details on how the division should be carried out.

3. However, disputes arose between the parties as to the obligations each party should fulfil under the Settlement Agreement. The disputes were referred to Mr Giam Chin Toon SC as arbitrator (the Arbitrator). There were two sets of disputes giving rise to two separate arbitration proceedings. We are here concerned with only the second arbitration. Before the Arbitrator, Tang was the respondent and Tan, the claimant. There were claims and counterclaims between the parties. One of the counterclaims brought by Tang was for a sum of A$1,375,762.64 (hereinafter referred to as the "A$1.3 million counterclaim"). On 10 January 2000 the Arbitrator made a reasoned award, with the following concluding results:-

"1. The claimants (Tans) claim be dismissed

2. The respondents (Tangs) counterclaim be dismissed.

3. This award is final save as to costs."

4. Two days later, on 12 January 2000, the solicitors for Tang wrote to the Arbitrator, pointing out that, although he had dismissed Tangs counterclaim, it would appear that an aspect of the counterclaim of Tang relating to cash deposits were left out by the Arbitrator and that the award in dismissing Tangs counterclaim did not refer to these cash deposits. Tangs solicitors accordingly asked the Arbitrator to make an additional award, pursuant to Article 33 of the Model Law.

5. On 17 January 2000, the Arbitrator issued an additional award wherein he acknowledged that he had omitted to address Tangs counterclaim relating to the seven cash deposits and duly made the award in respect thereof. However, as regards Tangs A$1.3 million counterclaim, the Arbitrator re-affirmed the 10 January 2000 award and refused to make any award in respect of that counterclaim because he did not think that Tang was entitled to it. The Arbitrator gave his reasons.

6. Following the delivery of this additional award, on 21 January 2000, Tangs solicitors wrote again to the Arbitrator raising two points. First, they sought further arguments before the Arbitrator relating to the A$1.3 million counterclaim on the ground that the Arbitrator appeared to have decided the matter on the basis of a point which was not argued before him. Second, they sought clarification as to whether Tang would be entitled to interest on the cash deposits which were to be refunded to him under the additional award of 17 January 2000.

7. The Arbitrator acceded to the request of Tang for further arguments and heard the parties on 31 January 2000. On 6 March 2000, the Arbitrator rendered "Additional Award II" wherein he dealt with not only the counterclaim for A$1.3 but also the question of interest on the cash deposits and the question of costs, which question was reserved under the award of 10 January 2000. On the A$1.3 million counterclaim, the Arbitrator stated that his previous interpretation of the relevant provision of the Settlement Agreement as set out in his Additional Award of 17 January 2000 was erroneous. He thus changed his mind and gave an award in respect of the A$1.3 million counterclaim with interest. This award will hereinafter be referred to as the "March award".

8. Accordingly, Tan applied by way of a motion to have the March 2000 award set aside.

Reasons given by Arbitrator

9. In the March award, the Arbitrator expressly addressed the question whether he had the jurisdiction or power to recall an award and alter it. We will now quote the relevant paragraphs of the award where he gave his reasons why he could do that:-

It is not in dispute that in the case of judgments pronounced by the courts, the Judge has the power to re-consider his verdict so long as the judgment has not been entered or perfected. There is no such procedure in an arbitration award. So, a judge can, like in the case of Lim Yam Teck v Lim Swee Cheng (1979) 1 MLJ 162 change his mind after giving further consideration to the matter. There is, therefore, a period in which a judge is permitted to re-consider the matter. Thereafter, if a decision is wrong, it would have to be rectified by a Court of Appeal.

Unfortunately, the position is less clear in an international arbitration award where the arbitrator desires to re-consider the matter. There are no direct authorities on the point. If an error is made, there are no express provisions whereby the decision could be rectified in a court of law. Great injustice would be caused in such a case. It is inconceivable that the law or public policy would permit such a situation.

In addition, it has been submitted by Counsel for the Respondent that since there is no procedure of registration or perfection of the Award, the equivalent period for an arbitrator could be when enforcement proceedings are applied for. I agree with this.

I am therefore of the view that an arbitrator can re-consider the award not only on the terms of Article 33(1) of the Model Law but under the general powers given to him to determine the rules and procedure of the tribunal which would include the power to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • PT First Media TBK v Astro Nusantara International BV
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 31 October 2013
    ...(folld) Syska v Vivendi Universal SA [2009] Bus LR 367; [2009] 1 All ER (Comm) 244 (refd) Tang Boon Jek Jeffrey v Tan Poh Leng Stanley [2001] 2 SLR (R) 273; [2001] 3 SLR 237 (refd) Yukos Oil Co v Dardana Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 543 (refd) Arbitration Act 1953 (Act 14 of 1953) s 20 Arbitration A......
  • Astro Nusantara International BV v PT Ayunda Prima Mitra
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 22 October 2012
    ...Poh Leng Stanley v Tang Boon Jek Jeffrey [2000] 3 SLR (R) 847; [2001] 1 SLR 624 (refd) Tang Boon Jek Jeffrey v Tan Poh Leng Stanley [2001] 2 SLR (R) 273; [2001] 3 SLR 237 (refd) Tjong Very Sumito v Antig Investments Pte Ltd [2009] 4 SLR (R) 732; [2009] 4 SLR 732 (refd) International Arbitra......
  • LW Infrastructure Pte Ltd v Lim Chin San Contractors Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 29 November 2013
    ...597 (refd) Scibilia & Lejo Holdings Pty Ltd Arbitration, Re [1985] 1 Qd R 94 (refd) Tang Boon Jek Jeffrey v Tan Poh Leng Stanley [2001] 2 SLR (R) 273; [2001] 3 SLR 237 (refd) Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 2002 Rev Ed) s 45 (consd) ;ss 2 (1) , 21 (9) , 33, 36, 43 (4) , 43 (5) , 43 (6) , 44, 4......
  • PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SA
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 1 December 2006
    ...1 Lloyds' Rep 45 (refd) Smith v Linskills [1996] 1 WLR 763; [1996] 2 All ER 353 (refd) Tang Boon Jek Jeffrey v Tan Poh Leng Stanley [2001] 2 SLR (R) 273; [2001] 3 SLR 237 (refd) International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed)ss 2 (1), 19B, First ScheduleArts 34 (2) (a) (iii), 34 (2) (......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT