Bovis Lend Lease Pte Ltd v Jay-Tech Marine & Projects Pte Ltd and Another Application

Bovis Lend Lease Pte Ltd v Jay-Tech Marine & Projects Pte Ltd and Another Application

Clause 13.3.2 of the Subcontract designates the Singapore Institute of Architects as the appointing authority for the arbitrator in the absence of agreement between the parties; the clause does not submit the arbitration to SIAC administration but merely requires the appointed arbitrator to conduct the arbitration...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] SGHC 91
Parties
Plaintiff in OS 77; Defendant in OS 166: Bovis Lend Lease Pte Ltd; Defendant in OS 77; Plaintiff in OS 166: Jay-Tech Marine & Projects Pte Ltd
Court
General Division of the High Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
6 May 2005
Case Number
OS 77/2005, 166/2005
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons (interpretation of Arbitration Clause) / High Court Judgment (final)
Outcome
Declared that the Singapore Institute of Architects is the appointing authority; the arbitration is ad hoc and to be conducted by the appointed arbitrator in accordance with such SIAC rules as the arbitrator deems applicable; Jay-Tech's notice to SIAC of 28 December 2004 was not a valid invocation; costs awarded...
Legal Topics
Appointing Authority, Institutional Vs Ad Hoc Arbitration, Application of SIAC Rules, Construction of Arbitration Clause, Party Autonomy
Source Language
english
Arbitration Contract Law Civil Procedure Construction Law Appointing Authority Institutional Vs Ad Hoc Arbitration Application of SIAC Rules Construction of Arbitration Clause +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bovis Lend Lease Pte Ltd

Plaintiff in OS 77; Defendant in OS 166

Jay-Tech Marine & Projects Pte Ltd

Defendant in OS 77; Plaintiff in OS 166

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons (interpretation of Arbitration Clause) / High Court Judgment (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 13 appoints SIAC as administering institution or merely requires the arbitrator to apply SIAC rules
  2. 2 Which body is the appointing authority when parties fail to agree
  3. 3 Whether notice of arbitration given to SIAC was a valid invocation of the arbitration agreement

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 13.3.2 of the Subcontract designates the Singapore Institute of Architects as the appointing authority for the arbitrator in the absence of agreement between the parties; the clause does not submit the arbitration to SIAC administration but merely requires the appointed arbitrator to conduct the arbitration according to such SIAC rules as the arbitrator determines applicable; accordingly the arbitration is ad hoc rather than institutional and Jay-Tech's Notice of Arbitration to SIAC was not a valid invocation of the arbitration agreement.

Court Disposition

Declared that the Singapore Institute of Architects is the appointing authority; the arbitration is ad hoc and to be conducted by the appointed arbitrator in accordance with such SIAC rules as the arbitrator deems applicable; Jay-Tech's notice to SIAC of 28 December 2004 was not a valid invocation; costs awarded...

Orders

  • Declaration that on proper construction of clause 13 of the Subcontract the arbitrator, in the absence of agreement between the parties, should be appointed by the Singapore Institute of Architects
  • Declaration that the arbitration pursuant to the arbitration agreement is an ad hoc arbitration and shall be conducted by the arbitrator in accordance with such rules of the SIAC as the arbitrator determines are applicable