1 This is an application by the plaintiffs for leave to sign final judgment against the defendants under O 14 of the Rules of the Supreme Court.

2 The plaintiffs` claim here is for a sum of $26,519.83 being the amount due to them from the defendants under a charterparty dated 16 October 1968 made between the parties with interest and costs.

3 It was provided by cl 50 of the charterparty that any dispute arising shall be referred to arbitration. Now clause 50 of the charterparty reads as follows:

4 Certain disputes arose between the plaintiffs and the defendants under the said charterparty.

5 The plaintiffs referred the said disputes to arbitration under cl 50 of the said charterparty and appointed Mr Ralph E Kingsley of Kempson House, 35/37 Camomile Street in the City of London as their arbitrator under reference and advised the defendants by registered letter dated 9 October 1969 of such nomination and called upon the defendants to nominate their arbitrator.

6 The defendants, however, failed to nominate an arbitrator and the plaintiffs thereupon under the provisions of s 7(b) of the English Arbitration Act 1950 called upon their arbitrator the said Mr Ralph E Kingsley to assume the function of sole arbitrator in the reference.

7 Mr Ralph E Kingsley assumed the role of sole arbitrator and after due notice to both parties proceeded to make his award on the reference. The defendants, however, did not attend the arbitration. The award was that the defendants should pay to plaintiffs the sum of US$8,573.53 which is equivalent to S$26,519.83 with interest at 8% and costs. The full amount of this award is the claim of the plaintiffs in this action.

8 The defendants oppose this application and their main ground of such opposition would appear to be that the arbitration award was bad. They say that under the arbitration clause in the charterparty they had to nominate an arbitrator and as they had not so nominated one they did not submit to arbitration. They further say that though they had agreed that any arbitration under the charterparty should take place in London they had not agreed that the law of England, would apply to such arbitration. Therefore the appointment of Mr Ralph E Kingsley as sole arbitrator under the provisions of s 7(b) of the English Arbitration Act 1950 when the defendants failed to nominate an arbitrator was not in accordance with the terms of the charterparty and the arbitration award was bad.

9 I am unable to agree with this submission of the defendants. Here the parties had agreed by the said cl 50 of the charterparty that any disputes between them arising from the dealings on the charterparty shall be referred to arbitration in London. The said cl 50 is silent as to what law shall govern such arbitration proceedings. Moreover it is also silent on what should take place in the event of one of the parties failing to nominate an arbitrator when called upon to do so by the other party to deal with a dispute. In such circumstances as the parties had agreed that the arbitration should take place in London, in the absence of any specific provisions to the contrary in the charterparty the law of England should apply to such arbitration proceedings. Besides the provisions of s 7(b) of the English Arbitration Act 1950 are in pari materia with s 9(1)(b) of the Singapore Arbitration Ordinance. In these circumstances I find that the arbitration was conducted in accordance with the agreement and the award here was made pursuant to provisions of the said agreement and therefore the award here is a good one.

10 The defendants also took up various other objections of a procedural character against the institution of the action in its present form but having considered them I am of the opinion there is no substance in any of these objections.

11 In the event I allowed the plaintiffs` application and granted them leave to sign final judgment for the amount of their full claim with costs.

12 Application allowed