Progen Engineering v Winter Engineering: Arbitrator Fees & Appeal Delay in Construction Subcontract Dispute
In a dispute between Progen Engineering Pte Ltd (plaintiff) and Winter Engineering (S) Pte Ltd (defendant) concerning a subcontract for air-conditioning and mechanical ventilation works in the Tuas Checkpoint Project, the High Court of Singapore, presided over by Justice V K Rajah, dismissed Progen Engineering's application for leave to appeal an arbitration award. The court cited significant delays in filing the application and found the reasons for the delay unconvincing. The case involved a breach of contract claim and addressed issues related to arbitrator's fees and the timeliness of appeals against arbitration decisions. The court emphasized the importance of finality in arbitration awards.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Progen Engineering's appeal against an arbitration award was dismissed due to significant delays in filing. The court addressed arbitrator fee disputes.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Progen Engineering Pte Ltd | Plaintiff, Applicant | Corporation | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| Winter Engineering (S) Pte Ltd | Defendant, Respondent | Corporation | Application dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| V K Rajah | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Plaintiff was the subcontractor for air-conditioning and mechanical ventilation works.
- Plaintiff subcontracted the supply and installation of ductwork to the defendant.
- Disputes arose, and the defendant terminated the subcontract on 27 February 1998.
- The parties referred their disputes to arbitration in January 1999.
- The arbitrator issued the First Award on 26 November 2004.
- The plaintiff sought leave to appeal the First Award, which was partially remitted.
- The arbitrator issued the Second Award on 28 September 2005, reaffirming his original decision.
- The arbitrator directed each party to pay a half share of his additional professional fees as a condition for releasing the Second Award.
- The plaintiff refused to pay the fees, arguing that the arbitrator could not unilaterally fix them.
- The plaintiff filed an application seeking leave to appeal and an extension of time on 13 April 2006.
5. Formal Citations
- Progen Engineering Pte Ltd v Winter Engineering (S) Pte Ltd, OM 17/2005, SUM 1652/2006, [2006] SGHC 224
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff subcontracted to the defendant the supply and installation of the entire ductwork system for the Project. | |
| Defendant terminated the sub-contract. | |
| Plaintiff and defendant referred their disputes to arbitration. | |
| Arbitration hearing commenced. | |
| First Award issued. | |
| Plaintiff filed an application seeking leave to appeal on numerous purported questions of law arising out of the First Award. | |
| Second Award issued. | |
| Defendant obtained a copy of the Second Award. | |
| Court directed that the arbitrator file a Bill of Costs and the defendant furnish a copy of the Second Award to the plaintiff. | |
| Plaintiff filed an application seeking leave to appeal and a one-month extension of time. | |
| Application dismissed. |
7. Legal Issues
- Extension of Time
- Outcome: The court refused to grant an extension of time to file and serve an originating motion to appeal against the arbitrator’s decision.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Length of delay
- Reasons for delay
- Chances of appeal succeeding
- Degree of prejudice
- Arbitrator's Fees
- Outcome: The court held that the arbitrator was not constrained by s 25(3) of the Arbitration Act in determining his remuneration for the remitted issues.
- Category: Substantive
- Leave to Appeal
- Outcome: The court refused to grant leave to appeal from the decision not to reconsider the remaining issues.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Leave to appeal
- Extension of time to file appeal
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Arbitration
- Construction Law
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hong Huat Development Co (Pte) Ltd v Hiap Hong Co Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR 609 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an award is made and published when parties are notified it is ready for collection, and for the policy reasons underpinning the notice rule. |
| Pearson v Chan Chien Wen Edwin | N/A | Yes | [1991] SLR 212 | Singapore | Cited for the factors the court considers when deciding whether to grant an extension of time for appealing. |
| Lai Swee Lin Linda v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR 565 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Rules of Court must be obeyed with reasonable diligence. |
| AD v AE | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR 505 | Singapore | Cited for the observation that a delay of 49 days in serving a notice of appeal is a very substantial delay. |
| International Petroleum Refining & Supply Sdad Ltd v Elpis Finance S.A. | N/A | Yes | [1993] 2 Lloyds Rep 408 | N/A | Cited for the principle that parties have chosen their tribunal and agreed to be bound by its decision, and courts will only interfere within carefully controlled limits. |
| Pioneer Shipping Ltd v BTP Tioxide Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1982] AC 724 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the court's discretion to extend time must be exercised in accordance with the principles and policies underpinning the concept of arbitration. |
| Thamboo Ratnam v Thamboo Cumarasamy and Cumarasamy Ariamany d/o Kumarasa | N/A | Yes | [1965] 1 WLR 8 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the Rules of Court must prima facie be obeyed, with reasonable diligence being exercised. |
| Tan Chai Heng v Yeo Seng Choon | N/A | Yes | [1980-1981] SLR 381 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Rules of Court must prima facie be obeyed, with reasonable diligence being exercised. |
| The Melati | N/A | Yes | [2004] 4 SLR 7 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the “paramount consideration” is the need for finality. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 1999 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Arbitration
- Arbitrator's fees
- Extension of time
- Leave to appeal
- Subcontract
- Tuas Checkpoint Project
- First Award
- Second Award
- Remitted issues
- Remaining issues
15.2 Keywords
- arbitration
- appeal
- extension of time
- arbitrator fees
- construction
- subcontract
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Arbitration | 90 |
| Civil Practice | 80 |
| Contract Law | 30 |
| Construction Disputes | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- Civil Procedure
- Construction Law