Rakna Arakshaka Lanka Ltd v Avant Garde: Setting Aside Arbitration Award for Lack of Jurisdiction
Rakna Arakshaka Lanka Ltd (RALL) applied to the High Court of Singapore to set aside a final arbitration award in favor of Avant Garde Maritime Services (Private) Limited (AGMS). The arbitration concerned a breach of contract claim related to a Master Agreement between the parties. The court, presided over by Justice Quentin Loh, dismissed RALL's application, finding no valid grounds to set aside the award. The judgment was delivered on April 2, 2018.
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
Rakna Arakshaka Lanka Ltd's application to set aside a final arbitration award was dismissed, as the court found no grounds for doing so.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rakna Arakshaka Lanka Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Avant Garde Maritime Services (Private) Limited | Defendant | Corporation | Judgment for Defendant | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Quentin Loh | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- RALL and AGMS entered into a Master Agreement for maritime security-related projects.
- A dispute arose regarding RALL's obligation to provide assistance to AGMS.
- AGMS commenced arbitration against RALL for breach of contract.
- RALL did not participate in the arbitration proceedings.
- The Tribunal issued a Final Award in favor of AGMS.
- RALL applied to set aside the Final Award, alleging lack of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, and violation of public policy.
5. Formal Citations
- Rakna Arakshaka Lanka Ltd v Avant Garde Maritime Services (Private) Limited, Originating Summons No 198 of 2017, [2018] SGHC 78
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Master Agreement dated | |
| Sri Lankan presidential elections held | |
| MV Mahanuwara detained by Sri Lankan Police | |
| AGMS demanded RALL obtain Letter of Clearance | |
| RALL replied it was unable to respond to AGMS’s requests | |
| AGMS commenced arbitral proceedings against RALL | |
| RALL informed SIAC it had reached settlement with AGMS | |
| Preliminary Meeting held | |
| Tribunal issued an Interim Order | |
| Substantive hearing held | |
| Final Award dated | |
| RALL commenced proceedings to set aside the Final Award | |
| Oral argument heard | |
| Application dismissed with brief oral grounds | |
| RALL filed its notice of appeal | |
| Full grounds of decision given |
7. Legal Issues
- Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal
- Outcome: The court held that RALL was precluded from raising its jurisdictional objection at this late stage, as it had failed to challenge the Tribunal's ruling on jurisdiction as a preliminary issue within the 30-day time limit.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Termination of reference to arbitration
- Failure to raise jurisdictional challenge in a timely manner
- Breach of Natural Justice
- Outcome: The court held that RALL's claim of breach of natural justice had no merit, as RALL had chosen not to participate in the arbitration despite being given due notice and ample opportunity to do so.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to provide proper notice of arbitral proceedings
- Inability to present case
- Public Policy
- Outcome: The court held that RALL's allegations of bribery and corruption were based on pending trials and did not fall within the scope of s 24(a) of the IAA. The court also found that the Master Agreement did not require the performance of an illegal act.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Procurement of contract by bribery and corruption
- Illegality of contract performance
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside of Final Award
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Arbitration
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Maritime Security
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chimimport plc v G D’Alesio SAS | English decision | Yes | [1994] CLC 459 | England | Cited to compare the wording of the settlement agreement with the clause in the present case regarding the termination of arbitration. |
| PT First Media TBK (formerly known as PT Broadband Multimedia TBK) v Astro Nusantara International BV and others and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 372 | Singapore | Cited for its judgment on the active and passive remedies available to a party under the International Arbitration Act and Model Law. |
| Thyssen Canada Ltd v Mariana Maritime SA | English decision | Yes | [2005] EWHC 219 | England | Cited to support the argument that a party who participates in arbitral proceedings and fails to raise an objection as to a serious irregularity affecting the proceedings will lose the right to object. |
| Astro Nusantara International BV v PT Ayunda Prima Mitra | High Court | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 636 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a party may choose to leave the arbitral proceedings in protest, in which case the time limits in Article 34 do not apply. |
| AJU v AJT | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 739 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a finding of fact by the Tribunal is binding on the parties and cannot be reopened by a supervisory court. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre SIAC Rules (5th edition, 1 April 2013) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Arbitration
- Setting aside
- Jurisdiction
- Natural justice
- Public policy
- Master Agreement
- SIAC Rules
- UNCITRAL Model Law
- International Arbitration Act
- MOU
15.2 Keywords
- arbitration
- setting aside
- jurisdiction
- maritime security
- singapore
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- Contract Law