By Tham Wei Chern & Ling Yuanrong - Fullerton Law Chambers LLC
|
Nature of Matter |
Jurisdiction of Tribunal; Remission |
|
Case Summary |
This was an appeal brought against the decision of the Judge sitting in the Singapore International Commercial Court (“Judge”). The Judge decided that the award (“Award”) issued by the arbitral tribunal (“Tribunal”) had failed to take into account the existence and quantum of a debt (“Principal Debt”) and the interest owing by CKH to CKG. The Judge then ordered that the Award be remitted to the Tribunal to give the Tribunal an opportunity to eliminate the grounds for setting aside by deciding the Principal Debt issue. The scope of matters to be remitted to the Tribunal was carefully formulated and defined by the Judge, in consultation with the parties (“Remitted Matters”). When the matter returned to the Tribunal, CKH raised a number of points relating to the Principal Debt which fell outside the scope of the Remitted Matters. The parties then sought the Judge’s decision on this dispute. The Judge held that the Tribunal’s role was strictly limited to the exercise defined by the Remitted Matters set out in the order for remission. CKH appealed to the Court of Appeal against the Judge’s decision. |
| Ruling |
CKH’s appeal was dismissed. While CKH also sought to challenge the terms of reference as set out in the Judge’s remission order, the Court of Appeal held that this was not open to CKH. The Court of Appeal held that the terms of the remission ordered under Article 34(4) of the Model Law were res judicata. In the present appeal, all that was open to the Court were issues of interpretation of the meaning and scope of the remission ordered. The Court of Appeal held that an arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction is only revived to the extent of the remission ordered by the court. The scope of remission is necessarily defined by the terms of the order ordering remission. A carefully defined order, like that in the present case, specifies precisely what the Tribunal can and should do. Apart from the remission ordered, there was no basis on which CKH or the Tribunal itself could seek to re-open or expand the subject matter of the award or arbitration. On the facts, the matters raised by CKH fell outside the scope of the limited remission ordered. |