CNA v CNB: Striking Out Setting Aside Application for International Arbitral Award
CNA, CND, and CNE applied to set aside an international arbitral award. CNB and CNC applied to strike out the originating summonses, arguing the setting aside applications were filed out of time. The High Court of Singapore, General Division, presided over by Ang Cheng Hock J, dismissed the striking out applications, finding that CNA's request for correction of the award extended the time for all parties to file their setting aside applications.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Applications to strike out the originating summonses are dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Applications to strike out setting aside applications for an international arbitral award were dismissed, as the setting aside applications were filed in time.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CNA | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application not time-barred | Neutral | |
| CNB | Defendant | Corporation | Striking out application dismissed | Lost | |
| CNC | Defendant | Corporation | Striking out application dismissed | Lost | |
| CND | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application not time-barred | Neutral | |
| CNE | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application not time-barred | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Ang Cheng Hock | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- CNA, CND, and CNE applied to set aside an international arbitral award.
- CNB and CNC applied to strike out the originating summonses, arguing the setting aside applications were filed out of time.
- CNA made an application to the Secretariat of the ICC under Art 36(2) of the ICC Arbitration Rules.
- The tribunal issued its decision on CNA’s Application, which it dismissed entirely.
- The Court of Appeal delivered its judgment in BRS (CA).
- The court found that CNA's request for a correction of the award extended the time for all parties to file their setting aside applications.
5. Formal Citations
- CNA v CNB and another and another matter, Originating Summons No 1293 of 2020 (Summons No. 288 of 2021), [2021] SGHC 192
- CNA v CNB and another and another matter, Originating Summons No 1306 of 2020 (Summons No. 289 of 2021), [2021] SGHC 192
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| CNA and CNB entered into several agreements. | |
| CNA entered into a software licensing agreement with B Ltd and C Corp. | |
| CNA, CNB and B Ltd entered into a supplementary agreement to the SLA. | |
| CNA and CNB reached a settlement. | |
| SLA was amended. | |
| CNA ceased being a shareholder in CNB. | |
| SLA was extended. | |
| CND became the licensee of X2 under the SLA. | |
| CNB communicated to CNA that it would not agree to any extension of the SLA. | |
| CNB commenced an arbitration against CND and CNE. | |
| CNA executed an agreement with CND and CNE to extend the SLA. | |
| CNB transferred all of its software-related business divisions to CNC. | |
| The tribunal in the SHIAC arbitration issued an award confirming the validity of the 2017 Extension Agreement. | |
| The ICC tribunal issued its partial award on the issue of liability. | |
| CNA, CND and CNE received the original hard copy of the Partial Award. | |
| CNA made an application to the Secretariat of the ICC under Art 36(2) of the ICC Arbitration Rules. | |
| The tribunal issued its decision on CNA’s Application, which it dismissed entirely. | |
| CNA received the original hard copy of the tribunal’s decision. | |
| The Court of Appeal delivered its judgment in BRS (CA). | |
| CNA filed its application to set aside the Partial Award in OS 1293. | |
| CND and CNE filed their application to set aside the Partial Award in OS 1306. | |
| CNB and CNC filed applications, seeking orders that both OS 1293 and OS 1306 be struck out and/or dismissed. | |
| Hearing of SUM 288/2021 & 289/2021. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Striking out application
- Outcome: The court dismissed the striking out applications.
- Category: Procedural
- Setting aside arbitral award
- Outcome: The court found that the applications to set aside the arbitral award were not time-barred.
- Category: Substantive
- Interpretation of arbitral award
- Outcome: The court found that the request for an interpretation of sub-para 598(4) was not one that fell within Art 33(1) of the Model Law.
- Category: Substantive
- Correction of arbitral award
- Outcome: The court found that the request for a correction of sub-para 598(10) was one that fell within Art 33(1) of the Model Law.
- Category: Substantive
- Extension of time limit for setting aside application
- Outcome: The court found that CNA's Application extended the time for CND and CNE to make their application to set aside the Partial Award.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside of arbitral award
- Striking out of originating summons
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Arbitration
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Software
- Online Gaming
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BRS v BRQ and another and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 390 | Singapore | Cited as the Court of Appeal decision that the substance of a request under Art 33 must come within the scope of that article before it can have the effect of extending the time limit under Art 34(3). |
| BRS and another v BRQ and another and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 260 | Singapore | Cited as the High Court decision that declined to apply a qualitative test in considering whether a request made under Art 33 of the Model Law actually fell within the ambit of that article. |
| Republic of India v Vedanta Resources plc | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 50 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that procedural orders are interlocutory in nature and can be revisited by the tribunal. |
| Tay Eng Chuan v United Overseas Insurance Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 1043 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that only technical, mechanical and non-substantive errors may be corrected under Art 33(1) of the Model Law and Art 36(1) of the ICC Arbitration Rules. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lam Leng Hung and others | N/A | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 659 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of construction that would be applicable here is the ejusdem generis rule. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- International arbitral award
- Setting aside application
- Striking out application
- Art 33 of the Model Law
- Art 34(3) of the Model Law
- Interpretation of award
- Correction of award
- Time limit
- Extension of time
- Functus officio
15.2 Keywords
- Arbitration
- Setting Aside
- Striking Out
- Time Limit
- Model Law
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- Civil Procedure