Leonard Loh – Duane Morris and Selvam

May 8, 2024May 8, 2024 by Duane Morris & Selvam

Claimants Banding Together: Is There Always Strength in Numbers?

By Leonard Loh

Key Takeaway: While there are obvious advantages for potential claimants to band together, there are issues which must be fully considered in order for all potential claimants to make a considered decision. Independent legal advice is recommended, prudent and necessary before committing to a group litigation.

Potential claimants are now, more often and more effectively, harnessing the power of messaging apps, internet forums and social media to seek out others who have suffered similar plights under the hands of the same defendant(s), to organise themselves and to launch actions. However, it is important to ask: is there always strength in numbers?
Continue reading “Claimants Banding Together: Is There Always Strength in Numbers?”

July 14, 2023 by Duane Morris & Selvam

Multi-Year Modelling for Quantification of Delay Claims

Case Commentary

Crescendas Bionics Pte Ltd v Jurong Primewide Pte Ltd and other appeals [2023] SGHC(A) 9

By Leonard Loh (Selvam LLC)

Takeaway: The issues of remoteness and what is in the reasonable contemplation of parties is a fact-sensitive exercise. Employers are thus encouraged to share with their main contractors (or main contractors with their sub-contractors) on the nature of the project and the potential knock-on effects of delay.

On 9 February 2023, the Appellate Division of the Singapore High Court issued its decision in Crescendas Bionics Pte Ltd v Jurong Primewide Pte Ltd and other appeals [2023] SGHC(A) 9. While multiple issues relating to causation, remoteness, quantification and apportionment were discussed, one significant finding was the adoption of the multi-year model by the Appellate Division in quantifying the amount of damages payable by the main contractor to the employer for delay.

The dispute arose over delays in the construction of Biopolis 3, a seven-storey multi-tenanted business park development in One-North envisaged as a research and development hub for biomedical sciences institutes and organisations, offering specialised facilities such as wet laboratories, chemistry laboratories and an animal facility (at [3]). Following a trial and appeal on issues of liability, it was adjudged that the construction of Biopolis 3 was deemed to be delayed, with the Employer being responsible for 173 days of delay and the Main Contractor being responsible for 161 days of delay. One of the delay claims asserted by the Employer against the Main Contractor was for post-completion net rental revenue loss sustained even after Biopolis 3 was completed. Continue reading “Multi-Year Modelling for Quantification of Delay Claims”

July 13, 2023July 14, 2023 by Duane Morris & Selvam

Re-Emphasis on Early Recourse to Legal Counsel to Avoid Pitfalls in Arbitrability and Governing Law

Case Commentary

Anupam Mittal v Westbridge Ventures II Investment Holdings [2023] SGCA 1

By Leonard Loh (Selvam LLC)

Takeaways: Parties must properly consider and expressly provide for the law of the arbitration agreement, and not merely treat it as a given that the proper law of the arbitration agreement would invariably be the proper law of the contract as expressly chosen by the parties.

Summary

On 6 January 2023, the Singapore Court of Appeal, being the highest Court level in Singapore, issued an illuminating judgment in Anupam Mittal v Westbridge Ventures II Investment Holdings [2023] SGCA 1 (“Anupam Mittal”) on a key question that has not been dealt with definitively. The question posed to the Court of Appeal is as follows: what system of law determines, at the pre-award stage, whether a dispute is arbitrable or not.

The Singapore Court of Appeal endorsed the “composite approach”. The question of arbitrability is “in first instance, determined by the law that governs the arbitration agreement”. Notwithstanding, if the law of the seat regards a dispute as being non-arbitrable, the said law of the seat will also be applied to render the dispute non-arbitrable (at [55]). A Singapore court is allowed take cognisance of both the law of the arbitration agreement and the law of the seat because, in the Court of Appeal’s view, section 11(1) of the International Arbitration Act 1994 (the “IAA”) requires a Singapore court to have regard to local and foreign public policy. Continue reading “Re-Emphasis on Early Recourse to Legal Counsel to Avoid Pitfalls in Arbitrability and Governing Law”