Lawlines Vol 10 Issue 1 - eOASIS - Rajah & Tann LLP

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Vol 10 Issue 1 June 2008 • Rajah & Tann LLP’s Bi-Annual Journal on articles of current interest, features, and legal developmentsIN THIS ISSUE:A Round-Up Of LatestDevelopments In TheFirst Half Of 2008Rajah & Tann LLP Hosts9 th Lunchtime SeminarSeriesTax, Private Wealth &Trusts PracticeCourt Of Appeal DeliversJudgment On The LTA-Komoco Motors DisputeInsider Trading And TheVexed QuestionOf General AvailabilityCourts And Arbitration -A Question Of Balance?Recent Developments InSingapore LawDisclosure OfConfidential InformationBy ProfessionalIn The Pursuit Of ItsLegitimate InterestsPublic PrivatePartnership Projects– The Processdisputes to be settled in that particular manner and the costs awarded to a successful party cannotbe considered injurious to the public good or shocking to the conscience, however unreasonablesuch an award may prove to be upon examination.It cannot be overlooked that one of the main advantages of arbitration is that it is mere costefficientthan litigation. If costs are not controlled by the courts or by any other body, there is a riskthat arbitration may in some cases end up a more expensive experience for the parties. If so, thismay undermine the raison d’etre of arbitration.Breach Of Natural JusticeAs for judicial intervention for breach of natural justice rules, Prakash J in VV stated at [52] thatnatural justice ‘does not mean that every conclusion that an arbitrator intends to make be putbefore the parties’. In Soh Beng Tee, the Court of Appeal pointed out that applying uncriticallyrules developed for High Court actions confuses and irritates the commercial community withoutimproving the quality of arbitral justice.In Soh Beng Tee, Fairmount, a property developer, engaged SBT as its main contractor. SBT appliedfor and was given an extension of time of five days. Fairmount terminated the contract after theexpiry of the extended deadline. The arbitrator found that Fairmount had hindered SBT’s abilityto perform the contract timeously and as the time for completion was at large, SBT was given areasonable time to complete the project. Fairmount argued that whether time was at large was notan issue before the arbitrator and that rules of natural justice had been breached as it was deprivedof putting forward a case against setting time at large.Open Source In ITContracts52 /77
Vol 10 Issue 1 June 2008 • Rajah & Tann LLP’s Bi-Annual Journal on articles of current interest, features, and legal developmentsIN THIS ISSUE:A Round-Up Of LatestDevelopments In TheFirst Half Of 2008Rajah & Tann LLP Hosts9 th Lunchtime SeminarSeriesTax, Private Wealth &Trusts PracticeCourt Of Appeal DeliversJudgment On The LTA-Komoco Motors DisputeInsider Trading And TheVexed QuestionOf General AvailabilityCourts And Arbitration -A Question Of Balance?Recent Developments InSingapore LawDisclosure OfConfidential InformationBy ProfessionalIn The Pursuit Of ItsLegitimate InterestsPublic PrivatePartnership Projects– The ProcessOpen Source In ITContractsFor a start, the Court stated that for the integrity of the arbitral process and compliance with rulesof natural justice, the narrow scope expressly acknowledged under both the Arbitration Act andthe IAA must be adhered to. Thus, the Court may only intervene where there was a ‘real basis foralleging that the arbitrator has conducted the arbitral process either irrationally or capriciously’.VK Rajah JA noted that the court’s function is not to comb though the arbitral award assiduouslyto find any fault with the arbitral process. Rather, an award should be read generously such thatonly meaningful breaches of rules of natural justice resulting in prejudice are remedied. Here, allthe facts relating to the award were fully alive throughout the proceedings. As such, there was nobreach of the rules of natural justice.The above case was followed in VV, which has been discussed above. In this case, the senior counselclaimed S$25,000 per day as costs and the plaintiff submitted that the arbitrator’s acceptance ofthe fact that such fees may be charged by leading counsel in international arbitrations withoutany evidence of these fees being provided, nor any opportunity given to the plaintiffs to test thatevidence, was a breach of natural justice rules. However, Judith Prakash J ruled that the arbitrator’sviews on costs were clearly before the parties, who had every opportunity to address him on thisissue. Thus, the plaintiff’s allegation that there had been a breach of natural justice could not becountenanced.ConclusionEnsuring the right amount of judicial intervention has not always been easy. In preserving thedefining aspects of arbitration, including party autonomy and finality, it is arguable that valuessuch as fairness and justice may suffer a concomitant circumscription, and especially so since highthresholds need to be crossed before the principles of public policy and natural justice may beengaged.53 /77
Page 2 and 3: Vol 10 Issue 1 June 2008 • Rajah
Page 8: Vol 10 Issue 1 June 2008 • Rajah

Lawlines Vol 10 Issue 1 - eOASIS - Rajah & Tann LLP

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?