Case number: 208
Article number: model arbitration law / 33(1)
Thessaurs issue:
Country of decision: Singapore
Year of decision: 1998
Type of decision: Arbitral award

Case 208: MAL 33(1)

Singapore: Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) (Lawrence Boo, Presiding Arbitrator)

6 February 1998; SIAC Arb. no. 6 of 1996

Original in English

Unpublished

The respondents succeeded in an arbitration and were awarded costs to be assessed by the Presiding Arbitrator. In the subsequent assessment of costs, the respondents were awarded S$177,500 for costs and S$4,163 for disbursements. The respondents later realized that they had omitted to include in their certificate of costs, disbursements in the sum of S$25,690.00 representing the costs of survey reports prepared by the respondents= witnesses and their fees for attendances at the arbitration hearing. They applied for a correction of the award for costs to include this amount.

The claimant argued that the words Ato correct in the award any errors in computation, any clerical or typographical errors or any errors of a similar nature@ in SIAC Rule 28.1 (similar to Article 33(1) MAL) are narrower than the term Aaccidental slip or omission@ used in the Arbitration Act Chapter 10 [1980 edition], which English courts had interpreted to include even errors in a bill of costs due to a mistake by solicitors representing a party (See Chessum Chessum & Sons v. Gordon [1901] 1 King=s Bench (English Law Reports) 644).

The Presiding Arbitrator held however that the words in SIAC Rule 28.1 (Article 33(1) MAL) were in substance not narrower than the term Aaccidental slip or omission@ in that an error in computation would include miscalculations, use of wrong data in calculations, omission of data in calculations and a clerical or typographical error would include mistakes made in the course of typing or drafting the award. The term Aerrors of a similar nature@ if read as meaning errors of the Asame kind@ would also include errors or mistakes of commission as well as of omission which had been inadvertently made or had never been intended by the tribunal. Accordingly, the Presiding Arbitrator considering that Article 33 MAL was best understood as used in contradistinction to errors of judgement, whether of law or of fact, for which a tribunal is not empowered to correct, held that it had jurisdiction to correct the certificate of costs.