[2010] SGHC 80

“Peng @ Tan Kwah Peng [2012] 8 MLJ 442 CRW Joint Operation v PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero) TBK [2011] SGCA 33 Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80 Garden Bay Sdn Bhd v Sime Darby Property Bhd [2018] 2 MLJ 636 Gas & Fuel Corporation of Victoria v Wood Hal”

“39. In arriving at this conclusion, we affirmed the decision of the High Court in Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80 (“Front Row”), which was the genesis of the line of High Court decisions standing for the proposition that an arbitral award may be set asi”

“509. East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80 and A v B [2015] 5 HKC The breach of natural justice occasioned severe prejudice to the Plaintiffs who have been deprived of their **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of th”

“509. East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80 and A v B [2015] 5 HKC The breach of natural justice occasioned severe prejudice to the Plaintiffs who have been deprived of their **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of th”

“omic Region Development Council v. Multi-Spex Architects Sdn Bhd & Another Case [2022] 8 CLJ 103. [56] Further, in Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80, the Singapore High Court referred to s 48(1)(a)(vii) of the Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 2002 Rev Ed), which”

“omic Region Development Council v. Multi-Spex Architects Sdn Bhd & Another Case [2022] 8 CLJ 103. [56] Further, in Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80, the Singapore High Court referred to s 48(1)(a)(vii) of the Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 2002 Rev Ed), which”

“International Bulk Carriers SPA [2017] 5 MLJ 314 Downer-Hill Joint Venture v Government of Fiji [2005] 1 NZLR 554 Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80 Garden Bay Sdn Bhd v Sime Darby Property Bhd [2018] 2 MLJ 636 Huawei Technologies (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v Maxb”

“Far East Holdings Bhd & Anor v Majlis Ugama Islam Dan Adat Resam Melayu Pahang and another appeal [2015] 4 MLJ 766 Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80 Intraline Resources Sdn Bhd v. Exxonmobil Exploration and Production Malaysia Inc [2017] 1 LNS 1022; [2017”

“v Polytek Engineering Co Ltd (1999) 2 HKCFAR 111; Downer-Hill Joint Venture v Government of Fiji [2005] 1 NZLR 554; Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80; Soh Beng Tee & Co Pte Ltd v Fairmount Development Pte Ltd [2007] 3 SLR 86; PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (P”

“2020, 2021 and early 2022 on the ground that the Covid-19 pandemic was then still fluid and for other reasons (see Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v. Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80 at paragraph 56). [40] Furthermore, Saujana highlighted that any prejudice could have been mitigated by a”

“2020, 2021 and early 2022 on the ground that the Covid-19 pandemic was then still fluid and for other reasons (see Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v. Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80 at paragraph 56). [40] Furthermore, Saujana highlighted that any prejudice could have been mitigated by a”

“ut forward. There was thus a failure by the Arbitrator to apply his mind to the arguments canvassed before him (see Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80, TMM Division Maritima SA de CV v Pacific Richfield Marine [2013] SGHC 186 and UDA Land Sdn Bhd v Puncak”

“ut forward. There was thus a failure by the Arbitrator to apply his mind to the arguments canvassed before him (see Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80, TMM Division Maritima SA de CV v Pacific Richfield Marine [2013] SGHC 186 and UDA Land Sdn Bhd v Puncak”

“(a) As was the case in Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80 (“Front Row”), the arbitrator failed to consider the issue (ie, how many days’ extension of time did the architects in fact grant) because he mistakenly thought that the issue was not in dispute whe”

“raised in its adjudication response without considering the merits thereof or making an effort to understand them (Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80 (“Front Row”) at [31]).”

“The Court of Appeal in AKN v ALC also raised the case of Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80 (“Front Row”) as a useful demonstration of the latter situation: see AKN v ALC at [46]. In Front Row, Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd (“Front Row””

“sue. One instance in which an award was set aside because of the arbitrator’s failure to consider an issue arose in Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80 (“Front Row”). In Front Row, the arbitrator had expressly stated in the award that the defendant to the a”

“In arriving at this conclusion, we affirmed the decision of the High Court in Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80 (“Front Row”), which was the genesis of the line of High Court decisions standing for the proposition that an arbitral award may be set aside o”

“The Claimant relied on Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80 (at [46] and [53]), where the arbitrator had mistakenly thought that part of the respondent’s case had been abandoned and thus did not deal with that part; see also AKN and another v ALC and others”

“tance where such a “clear and inescapable” inference that the tribunal had failed to consider an important issue is Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80 (“Front Row”), where there was no real dispute that the arbitrator had wholly failed to consider the aggr”

“the tribunal make some attempt bona fide to understand, engage with and apply its mind to its case on those issues (Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80 at [35]; TMM Division Maritima SA de CV v Pacific Richfield Marine Pte Ltd [2013] SGHC 186 (“TMM Division”

“(a) the Tribunal had decided the case on a basis not raised or contemplated by the parties (Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80 at [31]);”

“Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80 (“Front Row”) is an example of explicit indication: the tribunal stated in the award that the respondent in the arbitration (“Front Row”) had ceased to rely on a number of the points pleaded, and so”

“In Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80 (“Front Row”), the tribunal disregarded certain contentions of the respondent (“Front Row”) on the stated basis that Front Row had ceased to rely on them; in fact, Front Row had not ceased to rely on”

“A number of authorities were cited. In Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80 (“Front Row”), the High Court, after concluding that a tribunal’s dismissal of a counterclaim had involved a breach of the rules of natural justice, simply “ordered that the part of”

“d (see para 80 of the Buyer’s written submissions). The Buyer tries to draw a parallel between the present case and Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80 (“Front Row”), where the tribunal failed to consider a number of the points pleaded, because it thought t”

“r decision can constitute a breach of natural justice justifying intervention by the court is well-established: see Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80 and AKN and another v ALC and others and other appeals [2015] 3 SLR 488 (“AKN v ALC”), where the circumst”

“In Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80 (“Front Row”), an award was set aside as the arbitrator failed to consider Front Row’s submissions on a point that it had pleaded (at [46] and [54]). The arbitrator expressly noted that the point had”

“s failure to analyse that issue in its award, any such failure will not in itself suffice to warrant the inference (Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80 at [31], [39], [44]–[45]; ASG v ASH [2016] 5 SLR 54 at [90]–[91]).”

“nts on the pleaded issues without considering their merits, the tribunal would be in breach of natural justice: see Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80 (“Front Row”) at [31], citing Pacific Recreation Pte Ltd v SY Technology Inc [2008] 2 SLR(R) 491 at [30].”

“n constitute a breach of the fair hearing rule: CKH v CKG and another matter [2022] 2 SLR 1 (“CKH”) at [12], citing Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80 and AKN and another v ALC and others and other appeals [2015] 3 SLR 488 (“AKN”).”

“most an error of fact which would not justify setting aside the award. The present case is unlike the situation in Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80 (“Front Row”). In Front Row, the arbitrator was under the erroneous impression that the respondent had cea”

“(a) In Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80 (“Front Row”), the applicant contended that the arbitrator had breached the rule of natural justice by inexplicably concluding that the applicant only relied upon one of three misrepresentations and”

“[12]). Here, the implicated rule of natural justice is the right to a fair hearing (see the High Court decision of Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80 (“Front Row”) at [31]).”

“T’s reliance on Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80 (“Front Row”) was accordingly misplaced. The facts in Front Row were unique in that there was no real dispute that the arbitrator had failed to consider certain representations pleaded by a party (in”

“ribunal (TMM Division Maritima SA de CV v Pacific Richfield Marine Pte Ltd [2013] 4 SLR 972 (“TMM”) at [89], citing Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80 (“Front Row”) at [39]). It is often seen as the flipside to an ultra petita challenge – which is directed”

“In Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80 (“Front Row”), the arbitrator had failed to consider the defendant’s other pleaded contentions in its counterclaim for misrepresentation, because of his mistaken belief that these points had been aba”

“h the principle that justice must not only be done, but it must also be seen to be done: Shankar Kulkarni at [103]; Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80 (“Front Row”) at [30]. In BOI, we clarified the proper list of attributes to be accorded to the fair-mind”

“The claimants’ best authority is Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80 at [46]. In that case, a tribunal overlooked a pleaded contention in the mistaken belief that it had been abandoned. The tribunal was held to have breached natural justice.”

“Award which is set aside and not parts of the Award.” 26 [35] Additionally, I noted that in the Singapore case of Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80, Andrew Ang J held as follows in setting aside the arbitration award: “It is of course apparent that the ad”