Cases for Analysis I. Turner Pte. Ltd, was the main contractor in the 2. or est
ID: 386083 • Letter: C
Question
Cases for Analysis I. Turner Pte. Ltd, was the main contractor in the 2. or est he ho th building of Gateway, a long-term project to be constructed in the heart of Singapore. One of Turner's subcontractors was a company called Builders Federal Ltd. (BFL). As part of the overall contract, the two companies signed an arbitration agreement, which was designated as Clause 22 in the main contract. When the two parties found themselves in the middle of several serious disputes, they invoked Clause 22 and began arbitration. Turner asked that David Gardam be appointed as the arbitrator, and BFL asked for Douglas Smith. The court appointed Smith. Fronm the outset there was bad blood between Turner and Smith, which was revealed in a series of letters that went back and forth between the parties and Smith. At one point in the process, Turner realized that Clause 22 actually had no legal effect until each party activated it by giving their permission to proceed with arbitration. Smith denied that this was the case and ordered the arbitration process to continue. Turner objected, and Smith, who admit- ted that Turner had made a fairly convincing case, agreed to submit that argument to the High Court of Singapore. Nevertheless, Smith pushed the arbi- tration process forward Turner objected. Still the action went forward de- spite the precarious nature of Smith's position as arbitrator. Can the high court of Singapore dismiss Smith even though BFL is quite satisfied with his work as arbitrator? What grounds might be used to dismiss Smith? If Smith is dismissed, will the arbitration process continue or start over? [See: Turner (East Asia) Pte. Ltd. v. Builders Federail (Hong Kong) Ltd. SLR 532 SGHC 47 (Singapore High Court).l th poExplanation / Answer
Q-1 Can high court of SIngapore dismiss smith even though BFL is quite satisfied with his work as arbitrator?
Yes, Singapore high court can dismiss Smith even if BFL is quite satisfied from the wok of arbitrator. Because, SIngapore laws about forgien arbitartion aways outweigh the international laws. Forgein lowyer representing parties are violeting then legal profession act(Chapter 161). According to sec 29 and 30 of legal profession act, Subject to this Part, a person cannot act as advocate or solicitor if he is not on the roll and etiles practicing certificate in accordnace. However, Act was ammended later in september 2004.
Q2 What grounds might be used to dismiss Smith?
Singapore high court took decision according to old arbitration act. The ground to dismiss Smith is real likelihood of biasness from Smith. As per case details, few points can raise finger on the independence and impartiality of arbitrator. For instance- Smith knew that Turner (East Asia) has strong ground for arguements, he still chose to proceed with clouse 22 to Singapore High Court.
Q3 If Smith is dismissed, will the arbitration process continue or start over
Yes. the arbitration process will start from scracth after the dismissal of Smith. However, Singapore high court didnt prevent arbitrator to complete his pending duties related to arbitration process.