Permasteelisa Pacific Holdings Ltd v Hyundai Engineering and Construction Co Ltd

Permasteelisa Pacific Holdings Ltd v Hyundai Engineering and Construction Co Ltd

The court held that many of PISA's complaints were questions of fact or did not raise proper questions of law for leave to appeal; however the arbitrator had misconducted himself in adopting an apportionment method introduced in reply without giving PISA an opportunity to deal with it, had failed to state reasons on...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] SGHC 33
Parties
Applicant/sub Contractor: Permasteelisa Pacific Holdings Ltd; Respondent/main Contractor: Hyundai Engineering and Construction Co Ltd
Court
General Division of the High Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
15 February 2005
Case Number
OM 5/2004
Procedural Posture
Application Under Arbitration Act to Set Aside Award, for Leave to Appeal and Remittal / High Court Hearing on Originating Motion (judith Prakash J)
Outcome
Partial setting aside and remittal to arbitrator; most questions of law refused leave; one question of law granted leave to appeal
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Arbitration Award, Leave to Appeal on Question of Law, Arbitrator Misconduct, Remittal Under S16, Construction of Standard Form Clauses, Liquidated Damages, Extension of Time, Apportionment of Delay, Admissibility of Documents in Arbitration
Source Language
english
Arbitration Contract Law Civil Procedure Evidence Setting Aside Arbitration Award Leave to Appeal on Question of Law Arbitrator Misconduct Remittal Under S16 +5 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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Permasteelisa Pacific Holdings Ltd

Applicant/sub Contractor

Hyundai Engineering and Construction Co Ltd

Respondent/main Contractor

Procedural Posture

Application Under Arbitration Act to Set Aside Award, for Leave to Appeal and Remittal / High Court Hearing on Originating Motion (judith Prakash J)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether arbitrator misconducted himself or the proceedings under s17 of the Arbitration Act
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal under s28 should be granted on various questions of law including interpretation of clause 24(5) and subcontract/main contract interaction
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator misapplied clause 24(5) regarding issuance of completion certificate and the tests therein

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that many of PISA's complaints were questions of fact or did not raise proper questions of law for leave to appeal; however the arbitrator had misconducted himself in adopting an apportionment method introduced in reply without giving PISA an opportunity to deal with it, had failed to state reasons on how PISA's delay caused Hyundai's loss and had omitted to make determinations on certain claims and periods (apportionment of liquidated damages, preliminaries for specific period, unpaid balance and claims for replacement and wrongly rejected panels). The court set aside the specific apportionment finding (para 434), ordered remittal to the arbitrator with directions...

Court Disposition

Partial setting aside and remittal to arbitrator; most questions of law refused leave; one question of law granted leave to appeal

Orders

  • Set aside para 434 of the Award (apportionment that PISA's portion was 35.05%) and remit apportionment to the arbitrator for reconsideration
  • Direction to arbitrator to determine and assess extent to which PISA's delay caused or contributed to project delay and the proportion of damages for which PISA is responsible