LKT v Chun

The matter before the court was an application by the plaintiff, LKT, to enforce an international arbitral award against the defendant, Chun. The dispute arose from a commercial agreement between the parties, which included an arbitration clause. The plaintiff sought to enforce an arbitral award rendered in Singapore against Chun, who contested the enforceability of the award on several grounds, including that he was not bound by the arbitration agreement, that he was not given proper notice of the arbitration proceedings, and that the final award was invalid as it imposed joint and several liability.

The court had to determine whether Chun was bound by the arbitration agreement, despite the fact that it was signed by his agent, and whether the defendant's failure to call his wife and son as witnesses should lead to an inference that they would not have given favourable evidence. The court also needed to decide whether Chun was given proper notice of the arbitration proceedings, and whether the final award was valid despite purporting to impose joint and several liability, whereas the initial award had only determined joint liability.

The court found that Chun was bound by the arbitration agreement as his agent had signed it on his behalf with actual or ostensible authority. The court rejected Chun's argument that the failure of his wife and son to give evidence should lead to an inference that they would not have given favourable evidence, finding that the circumstances did not warrant drawing such an inference. The court also held that Chun had been given proper notice of the arbitration proceedings, as the notice was sent to his address and he had actual knowledge of the proceedings. Finally, the court found that the final award was valid, as the arbitrator had acted consistently with the basis of liability found in the partial award.

The court ordered that the arbitral award be enforced against Chun, and that he pay the plaintiff's costs of the application.