TAY ENG CHUAN V UNITED OVERSEAS INSURANCE LTD

[2009] SGHC 193, High Court, Singapore, Judith Prakash J, 27 August 2009

Arbitration - Correction of mistake in award - Extension of time to appeal - Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 2002 Rev ed), section 43 - SIAC Domestic Arbitration Rules, rule 34

Following the arbitration of a number of insurance claims, the claimant insured requested that the tribunal make several corrections to the award. The tribunal corrected two clerical errors but declined to make four other corrections sought which were of a more substantial nature. This was the insurance claimant's application under the domestic Arbitration Act for an order, in essence, that the time for appeal should begin to run from the date of the corrected award. Prakash J dismissed the application. The commonsense view was to treat the corrected award as bearing the date of the correction, so that the time for appeal ran from the date on which the correction was published. Nevertheless, that rule applied to more substantive corrections than mere clerical errors, and in this case, in spite of the corrections sought, there was not such ambiguity in the award that the applicant did not know where he stood. Section 50(3), which provided that an appeal was to be made within 28 days from the date when the appellant was notified of the award or the outcome of "any arbitral process of appeal or review" could not be read as referring to an application for correction of the award. Even if the application could be viewed as an application for an extension of time in which to file an application for leave, it could not succeed. The application in part had no prospects of success and in the part that it could potentially succeed, it would not substantially affect the right of the parties because the sums at issue would be small in comparison to those which had already been awarded. The parties' interest in having a final award would take precedence.