Hamid Sultan Abu Backer JC:

[1] This is my judgment in respect of the plaintiff's application to set aside and/or vary the arbitrator's award dated 14 April 2009 which also incorporates the interim award dated 8 May 2008. The defendant has also filed for registration and enforcement of the final award pursuant to s 38 of Arbitration Act 2005 (AA 2005). The applicant is making this application under the Arbitration Act 1952 or in the alternative AA 2005. The applicant had not intituled the appropriate sub section of the 2005 Act which is relied upon and that could be fatal for reasons which I shall adumbrate further in my judgment. In addition, the plaintiff has not set out the facts leading to the grounds in a concise manner within the spirit and intent of the relevant sub sections of ss 37 and 42 which gives no option to the court but dismiss the application in limine. This judgment is for Originating Summons R3-24-28-2009 as well as Originating Summons R3-24-48-2009.

[2] The plaintiff's prayer inter alia reads as follows:

(1) that the award made between the above named parties to the abovementioned Arbitration by Mr Tiong Kian Boon dated 14 April 2009, which incorporates the interim award dated 8 May 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the "final award") be set aside pursuant to s 24(2) of the Arbitration Act 1952;

(2) alternatively, that the final award be set aside pursuant to s 37 of the Arbitration Act 2005;

(3) alternatively, pursuant to s 42 of the Arbitration Act 2005:

(a) determining the following questions of law arising out of the final award:

(i) whether the final award is bad in law and is of no effect in that the arbitral proceedings were commenced and completed in accordance with Arbitration Act 2005 and not Arbitration Act 1952;

(ii) whether statements made by the plaintiff's representative at the first preliminary meeting and before the commencement of the arbitral as evidence and/or an admission in law;

(iii) whether the arbitrator in admitting the plaintiff's representative's statements made at the first preliminary meeting and before the commencement of the arbitral hearing proper and admitted the same as an admission of liability on the part of the plaintiff constituted a breach of the rules of natural justice;

(iv) whether the arbitrator has misconducted himself and/or the proceedings by deciding evidence which was inadmissible, in particular, by construing correspondence from the plaintiff to the arbitrator and the plaintiff during the arbitral proceedings as an admission of liability on the part of the plaintiff without due and proper process;

(v) whether the arbitrator was entitled to form a preconceived view of the plaintiff's liability before the commencement of the arbitral hearing proper;

(vi) whether there was apparent bias or partiality on the part of the arbitrator towards the defendant in the arbitration proceedings to the detriment of the plaintiff;

(vii) whether the arbitrator was entitled to the rule that there were no grounds for the plaintiff's counterclaim in the counterclaim simply because the counterclaim is a reiteration of the plaintiff's defence in the arbitration;

(viii) whether the defendant was entitled to an extension of time in completing the works and/or that the completion date was set at large on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to comply with the stipulated time for honouring payment of the interim certificates under the contract;

(ix) whether the arbitrator was entitled to make finding based on his own professional experience vis-à-vis, in holding that the Quantity Surveyor and Consultants will always independently verify and certify the quantities and value of any works resulting from any instructions;

(x) whether the arbitration was wrong in law in finding that there was no certificate of non-completion issued in accordance with cl 22.1 of the contract;

(xi) alternatively, whether the arbitrator was wrong in law in setting aside the certificate of non-completion;

(xii) whethe