Domestic arbitration award set aside as issued too late | Practical Law

Domestic arbitration award set aside as issued too late | Practical Law

Alvin Yeo, Senior Counsel (Senior Partner) and Andre Maniam (Head of Litigation & Dispute Resolution Department), WongPartnership LLP

Domestic arbitration award set aside as issued too late

Practical Law Legal Update 0-501-6232 (Approx. 2 pages)

Domestic arbitration award set aside as issued too late

Published on 03 Mar 2010 • Singapore
Alvin Yeo, Senior Counsel (Senior Partner) and Andre Maniam (Head of Litigation & Dispute Resolution Department), WongPartnership LLP
A recent decision of the Singapore High Court garnered some attention when the court set aside the arbitrator's award as having been issued too late. The case turned on a section of the Arbitration Act which allows the court to extend time for the arbitrator to issue his award where parties have specified a time limit for this. The case usefully highlights the emphasis placed by Singapore courts on party autonomy in arbitration. Nevertheless, as there is no equivalent section in the International Arbitration Act, the decision itself may be of limited interest to practitioners in the area of international arbitration.
In Ting Kang Chung John v Teo Hee Lai Building Constructions Pte Ltd & Ors [2010] SGHC 20, an arbitration was commenced in respect of a fairly low-value building and construction dispute and the parties had agreed to use the Arbitration Rules of the Singapore Institute of Architects. This specified that the arbitrator was required to issue his award within 60 days after the close of the arbitration hearing. In this case, the arbitrator issued his award more than a year after the deadline. When the award was challenged, the arbitrator sought belatedly to apply for an extension of time.
The court refused his application. It noted that where parties had agreed to specify a deadline for the award to be issued, the principle of party autonomy meant that the court should not lightly override this agreement. Accordingly, the court noted that any such extension would only be granted to prevent substantial injustice and provided that there was no prejudice to the other party. It also had to be justified by very good reasons. One crucial factor here in refusing the application was the failure by the arbitrator to apply for an extension until after his award was challenged.