Trinity Construction v Sinohydro: Striking Out & Stay of Proceedings in Arbitration Dispute

In Trinity Construction Development Pte Ltd v Sinohydro Corp Ltd (Singapore Branch), the Singapore High Court addressed the defendant's application to strike out the plaintiff's claim and, in the alternative, for a stay of proceedings in favor of arbitration. The plaintiff commenced an action in court while a parallel arbitration was ongoing. The court dismissed the striking out application but granted a stay of proceedings pending the resolution of the arbitration, citing its inherent powers of case management.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed in part. The striking out application is dismissed. The Suit is stayed pending resolution of the arbitration between the parties.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court addresses striking out action and stay of proceedings in favor of arbitration in Trinity Construction v Sinohydro.

1.7 Decision Date

6 October 2020

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Sinohydro Corp Ltd (Singapore Branch)	Defendant, Appellant	Corporation	Appeal dismissed in part	Partial	Pillay Mohan Reviendran of MPillay Tay Kai Yi Wynne of MPillay
Trinity Construction Development Pte Ltd	Plaintiff	Corporation	Striking out application dismissed, Suit stayed	Partial	Lim Dao Kai of Allen & Gledhill LLP Ee Jia Min of Allen & Gledhill LLP Tiong Yung Suh Edward of Allen & Gledhill LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Lee Seiu Kin	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Pillay Mohan Reviendran	MPillay
Tay Kai Yi Wynne	MPillay
Lim Dao Kai	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Ee Jia Min	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Tiong Yung Suh Edward	Allen & Gledhill LLP

4. Facts

Plaintiff sought $9,718,759.71 from Defendant under a Consulting Service Agreement.
Defendant disputed the claim, questioning the proper parties to the Agreement.
Plaintiff commenced arbitration; Defendant objected to the tribunal's jurisdiction.
Plaintiff commenced court proceedings due to concerns about limitation periods.
Defendant applied to strike out the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim and dismiss the Suit.
The issues in the Suit overlap with those in the arbitral proceedings.
Plaintiff requested the Arbitration be held in abeyance pending the Court’s determination.

5. Formal Citations

Trinity Construction Development Pte Ltd v Sinohydro Corp Ltd (Singapore Branch), Suit No 239 of 2020 (Registrar’s Appeal No 122 of 2020), [2020] SGHC 215

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2019-03-07	Defendant received a statutory letter of demand from the Plaintiff for $9,718,759.71.
2019-03-15	Defendant responded, requesting documents.
2019-03-26	Defendant reiterated request for documents and disputed the Plaintiff’s statutory letter of demand.
2019-04-02	Plaintiff rejected the request for documents and refused to withdraw the statutory letter of demand.
2019-05-09	Plaintiff repeated its demand for payment.
2019-05-23	Defendant reiterated its position that it disputed the Plaintiff’s entitlement to payment.
2019-11-01	Defendant received a letter from the Plaintiff, enclosing a Notice of Arbitration.
2019-11-13	Defendant raised objections to jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal.
2020-01-13	Plaintiff indicated it was compelled to commence proceedings in the Singapore High Court.
2020-01-17	Defendant refused to elect between arbitration or court proceedings.
2020-03-16	Plaintiff commenced Suit against the Defendant.
2020-04-06	Defendant applied to court seeking an order that the Plaintiff’s SOC be struck out and the Suit be dismissed.
2020-04-21	Plaintiff informed SIAC of its election and intention to resolve the substantive dispute by way of court proceedings.
2020-04-29	Plaintiff sent a subsequent letter to the SIAC reiterating its request.
2020-06-22	Application heard by the Assistant Registrar.
2020-08-17	Judgment reserved.
2020-10-07	Judgment.

7. Legal Issues

Striking out of Statement of Claim
- Outcome: The court found no basis to strike out the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Frivolous or vexatious claim
  - Abuse of court process
  - Multiplicity of proceedings
Stay of Court Proceedings in favor of Arbitration
- Outcome: The court ordered a stay of the Suit pending resolution of the related arbitration between the parties.
- Category: Procedural
Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal
- Outcome: The court noted that questions concerning the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal should rightly be dealt with by the tribunal itself.
- Category: Jurisdictional

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

Arbitration
Commercial Litigation
Construction Law

11. Industries

Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Gabriel Peter & Partners (suing as a firm) v Wee Chong Jin and others	High Court	Yes	[1997] 3 SLR(R) 649	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the power of striking out should only be invoked where it is plain and obvious that the plaintiff does not have a cause of action.
The Osprey	High Court	Yes	[1999] 3 SLR(R) 1099	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the power of striking out should only be invoked where it is plain and obvious that the plaintiff does not have a cause of action.
Ha Francesca v Tsai Kut Kan (No. 1)	N/A	Yes	[1982] H.K.C. 328	Hong Kong	Cited for the principle that the claim must be obviously unsustainable, the pleadings unarguably bad and it must be impossible, not just improbable, for the claim to succeed.
Chee Siok Chin and other v Minister for Home Affairs and another	High Court	Yes	[2006] 1 SLR(R) 582	Singapore	Cited for the definition of frivolous or vexatious proceedings and the categories of abuse of process.
Active Timber Agencies Pte Ltd v Allen & Gledhill	High Court	Yes	[1995] 3 SLR(R) 334	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court can have regard to the history of the matter and relevant correspondence exchanged between parties in addition to the pleadings.
Goh Koon Suan v Heng Gek Kiau	High Court	Yes	[1990] 2 SLR(R) 705	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court can have regard to the history of the matter and relevant correspondence exchanged between parties in addition to the pleadings.
Riduan bin Yusof v Khng Thian Huat and another	High Court	Yes	[2005] 2 SLR(R) 188	Singapore	Cited for the overlap between frivolous or vexatious proceedings and abuse of process.
Ansa Teknik (M) Sdn Bhd v Cygal Sdn Bhd	High Court of Johor Bahru	Yes	[1989] 2 MLJ 423	Malaysia	Distinguished from the present case; cited by the defendant but found not to support their argument regarding abuse of process.
Vitol SA v Norelf Ltd (The Santa Clara)	House of Lords	Yes	[1996] AC 800	United Kingdom	Cited by the defendant regarding waiver by election but found not applicable to the current instance.
Wilson Taylor Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Dyna-Jet Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 2 SLR 362	Singapore	Cited by the defendant regarding the limited supervisory role of the court over arbitral proceedings, but found not to demonstrate how bringing court proceedings amounts to an abuse of process.
Sim Chay Koon and others v NTUC Income Insurance Co-Operative Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2016] 2 SLR 871	Singapore	Cited by the defendant regarding the limited supervisory role of the court over arbitral proceedings, but found not to demonstrate how bringing court proceedings amounts to an abuse of process.
PUBG Corp v Garena International I Pte Ltd and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2020] 2 SLR 379	Singapore	Cited by the defendant regarding the limited supervisory role of the court over arbitral proceedings, but found not to demonstrate how bringing court proceedings amounts to an abuse of process.
Tomolugen Holdings Ltd and another v Silica Investors Ltd and other appeals	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2016] 1 SLR 373	Singapore	Cited for the principles regarding the court's inherent jurisdiction to grant a case management stay and the balance of higher-order concerns to be considered.
Maybank Kim Eng Securities Pte Ltd v Lim Keng Yong and another	High Court	Yes	[2016] 3 SLR 431	Singapore	Cited for extending the application of the principles in Tomolugen Holdings Ltd to a stay of proceedings involving an arbitration clause subject to the Arbitration Act.
Gulf Hibiscus Ltd v Rex International Holding Ltd and another	High Court	Yes	[2017] SGHC 210	Singapore	Cited for ordering a conditional stay even when the defendant was not a party to the arbitration agreement and affirming the court's inherent powers to control proceedings.
Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte Ltd v Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited	High Court	Yes	[2014] NZHC 1681	New Zealand	Cited for the Danone Factors, which offer a comprehensive guide for exercising discretion in granting a stay.
Shanghai Construction (Group) General Co. Singapore Branch v Tan Poo Seng	High Court	Yes	[2012] SGHCR 10	Singapore	Cited for affirming that a stay can be granted in respect of proceedings between parties who are not bound by an arbitration agreement.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 18 Rule 19(1) of the Rules of Court
Order 92 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)	Singapore
International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 2002 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Striking out
Stay of proceedings
Arbitration agreement
Jurisdictional objections
Abuse of process
Multiplicity of proceedings
Limitation period
Inherent jurisdiction
Case management stay
Kompetenz-kompetenz

15.2 Keywords

arbitration
stay of proceedings
striking out
jurisdiction
construction dispute

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Arbitration	90
Civil Procedure	85
Jurisdiction	70
Judgments and Orders	60
Asset Recovery	10

16. Subjects

Arbitration
Civil Procedure
Stay of Proceedings
Striking Out