Singapore: Ignorance Is Not Always Bliss: A Case Study Of Marty Limited v Hualon Corporation (M'sia) Sdn Bhd

Last Updated: 15 November 2018
Article by Philip Jeyaretnam and Paras Lalwani

Introduction

The case of Marty Limited v Hualon Corporation (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (receiver and manager appointed) [2018] SGCA 63 was an appeal by the Appellant (Marty) against the decision of the Singapore High Court (the High Court) in BMO v BMP [2017] SGHC 127 which held that a sole arbitrator (the Tribunal) had jurisdiction over a dispute referred by the Respondent (Hualon) to arbitration (the Arbitration).

The question for the Singapore Court of Appeal (the Court of Appeal) was whether there was still a binding arbitration agreement between the parties, notwithstanding that Hualon had commenced litigation in respect of a dispute which should properly have been arbitrated.

Marty was successfully represented by Senior Counsel Philip Jeyaretnam, Paras Lalwani, Chua Weilin, Tan Ting Wei and Alexander Choo of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP. The Dentons team took over the matter after the initial challenge to jurisdiction had failed before the Tribunal, and ultimately persuaded the Court of Appeal to find that Hualon had indeed repudiated the arbitration agreement.

The case turned on whether Hualon, when it had earlier commenced proceedings in the British Virgin Islands, had known of the existence of the arbitration agreement on which it later relied to commence arbitration. Hualon claimed it had commenced court proceedings in ignorance of the arbitration agreement, and so should not be considered to have repudiated that arbitration agreement. However, its claim depended on asserting that the contract in which the arbitration agreement was contained was invalid, as having been entered into without authority. The Dentons team, upon taking on the matter, identified the inconsistency between relying on an arbitration agreement and disclaiming the parent contract, and pressed Hualon to make a choice – to reprobate or approbate. If Hualon approbated, then, the argument went, it could not claim ignorance, while if it reprobated, it could not rely on the arbitration agreement.

Eventually, before the Court of Appeal, Hualon was forced to make an unequivocal choice. It approbated the parent contract, and then following from that was held to have repudiated the arbitration agreement contained in it.

Brief Facts

Prior to commencing the Arbitration, Hualon sued Marty and its two former directors and shareholders, Mr Oung Da Ming and Mr Oung Yu-Ming (the Oung Brothers), in the British Virgin Islands (the BVI Litigation) for breaches of statutory and fiduciary duties in effecting a series of share transfers in 1999, 2007 and 2008 (the Share Transfers) in its Vietnamese subsidiary, Hualon Vietnam. These Share Transfers had the effect of substantially reducing Hualon's shareholding in Hualon Vietnam, and Hualon grounded its claim against Marty (the Dispute) in dishonest assistance, knowing receipt and unjust enrichment.

Hualon Vietnam was incorporated in December 1993 and re-registered by Mr Oung Da Ming in February 2008. This resulted in a new charter (the Revised Charter) being adopted, which included amongst other clauses, an arbitration clause at Article 22 (the Arbitration Agreement) providing for "all arising disputes" to be referred to arbitration administered by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre. Hualon's position at the BVI Litigation was that Mr Oung Da Ming's entry into the Revised Charter was "unlawful and ineffective" because he had entered into it without authority.

It was in the course of the BVI Litigation, which included inter alia, an application by Marty for summary judgment (the Summary Judgment Application) to strike out the BVI Litigation, that Hualon suddenly gave notice of its intention to stay the BVI Litigation in favour of Arbitration. Hualon claimed that despite having held the Revised Charter in its possession for at least 5 years, and despite having been advised by 5 sets of counsel and a due diligence report, it had no knowledge of the Arbitration Agreement.

At the Arbitration, Hualon maintained the position it took in the BVI Litigation that Mr Oung Da Ming's entry into the Revised Charter was invalid as he had acted without authority, but nevertheless sought to rely on the Arbitration Agreement contained within the Revised Charter, and thus requested that the Tribunal rule on the question of its jurisdiction as a preliminary issue.

At the time, Marty, represented by previous counsel, advanced a number of arguments to challenge the Tribunal's jurisdiction, including the fact that Hualon had waived and/or repudiated the Arbitration Agreement by commencing the BVI Litigation.

The Tribunal's decision and the decision below

On 19 April 2016, the Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction over the Dispute. In particular, the Tribunal was not convinced that Hualon had actual knowledge of the Arbitration Agreement at the time it commenced the BVI Litigation. Thus, the Tribunal disagreed that Hualon had waived and/or repudiated the Arbitration Agreement.

Marty then appealed to the Singapore High Court on the question of the Tribunal's jurisdiction, which had been decided as a preliminary issue. Dentons took over as counsel for Marty and began to press Hualon on the contradiction between denying the validity of the Revised Charter, and yet at the same time relying on the Arbitration Agreement contained within it. The law did not allow Hualon to both approbate and reprobate the Revised Charter.

Dentons added to the arguments on repudiation and waiver the critical point that Hualon could not have entered into the Arbitration Agreement because it had consistently taken the position that the Revised Charter was "unlawful and ineffective" given Mr Oung Da Ming's alleged lack of authority. Having denied the validity of the Revised Charter, it was simply not for Hualon to claim in the same breath that it had entered into Arbitration Agreement.

At the hearing before the High Court, counsel for Hualon was asked to clarify its position on the validity of the Revised Charter (the Clarification), to which counsel replied that Hualon would not challenge the validity of the Revised Charter or ask for any determination on it.

In her judgment, Ang J dismissed Marty's application. In particular, she found that the Clarification had disposed of Marty's reliance on approbation and reprobation, and that although Hualon had breached the Arbitration Agreement by commencing litigation, this did not amount to a repudiation because Hualon did not have actual knowledge of the Arbitration Agreement when it commenced the BVI Litigation, and therefore lacked the requisite repudiatory intent. Ang J also held that in any event, Marty had not accepted any repudiation by Hualon.

The Court of Appeal's Decision

On appeal, Marty asked for the Clarification to be repeated and any ambiguity in it resolved, and then pressed the argument that Hualon could not disclaim knowledge of a term of a contract which it had accepted it had validly entered into. Once Hualon had knowledge, it must be held to have had repudiatory intent when commencing the BVI Litigation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.

Approbation and Reprobation

The Court of Appeal agreed that Hualon could not both rely on the Arbitration Clause while challenging the validity of the Revised Charter as a whole for lack of authority. It accepted that where a party challenges the validity of the underlying contract as a whole – i.e. that the Revised Charter was entered into without authority, this amounts to saying that every clause within that contract (including the Arbitration Agreement) is invalid because it was entered into without authority. In short, Hualon could not both approbate and reprobate the Revised Charter.

In pressing Hualon to approbate the Revised Charter and thereby concede that Mr Oung Da Ming had acted with authority, Dentons successfully fixed Hualon with actual knowledge of the terms of the Revised Charter (including the Arbitration Agreement). This was because Mr Oung Da Ming's actual knowledge of its terms (as a signatory to the Revised Charter) would be imputed to Hualon itself.

Repudiation

The Court of Appeal accepted that Hualon had repudiated the Arbitration Agreement, and that Marty had accepted such repudiation.

It held that the assessment of repudiation is an objective inquiry, and the test is whether a reasonable man in the shoes of the innocent party would take the breaching party's actions as indicating that the breaching party no longer intended to perform its contractual obligations.

The Court of Appeal set out the principle that "it is strongly arguable that the commencement of court proceedings is itself a prima facie repudiation of the arbitration agreement. This is because parties who enter into a contract containing an arbitration clause can reasonably expect that disputes arising out of the underlying contract would be resolved by arbitration and indeed have a contractual obligation to do so." Thus, a reasonable person in Marty's shoes, seeing that Hualon had commenced and maintained the BVI Litigation for some ten (10) months without reserving its right to arbitration, would have concluded that Hualon no longer wished to abide by the Arbitration Agreement.

Neither could Hualon explain-away its actions by claiming that it lacked actual knowledge of the Arbitration Agreement. As stated above, not only was Mr Oung Da Ming's actual knowledge of the terms of the Revised Charter (and Arbitration Agreement) imputed to Hualon as a result of its concession, but Hualon's alleged ignorance of the Arbitration Agreement was purely subjective. It would have been impossible for a reasonable person in Marty's shoes to know that Hualon had commenced the BVI Litigation because it was ignorant of the Arbitration Agreement.

As for acceptance of repudiation, the Court of Appeal took the view that Marty had accepted the repudiation through its Summary Judgment Application in the BVI Litigation. By making this application, Marty clearly engaged the jurisdiction of the BVI courts because it requested the BVI courts to determine the claim on its merits. Through this, Marty had clearly and unequivocally indicated to Hualon that it was willing to accept the latter's invitation to litigate rather than arbitrate the merits of the claim.

In the circumstances, the Court of Appeal held that Hualon had repudiated the Arbitration Agreement, and Marty had accepted this repudiation. The Arbitration Agreement was thus brought to an end, and consequently the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the dispute.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision illustrates the importance of considering all angles to any procedural choice, and ensuring that conduct is consistent. Ignorance, as an excuse for inconsistent conduct, may not be bliss.

Dentons Rodyk acknowledges and thanks Associates Alexander Choo and Tan Ting Wei, and Senior Associate Chua Weilin, for their contributions to this article.

About Dentons

Dentons is the world's first polycentric global law firm. A top 20 firm on the Acritas 2015 Global Elite Brand Index, the Firm is committed to challenging the status quo in delivering consistent and uncompromising quality and value in new and inventive ways. Driven to provide clients a competitive edge, and connected to the communities where its clients want to do business, Dentons knows that understanding local cultures is crucial to successfully completing a deal, resolving a dispute or solving a business challenge. Now the world's largest law firm, Dentons' global team builds agile, tailored solutions to meet the local, national and global needs of private and public clients of any size in more than 125 locations serving 50-plus countries. www.dentons.com.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Events from this Firm
30 Jan 2019, Other, Chicago, United States

Please join us on January 30, 2019, for the Fifth Annual Courageous Counsel Leadership Institute. This year's theme is "Risk and reward: Creating a culture that promotes innovation, change and growth.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions