Firm foundations year in review_19-01-16_FB

–– Secondly, a final award for the sums determined in the DAB Decision (i.e. dealing with the Primary Dispute) CRW successfully argued the first ground, and the tribunal issued an interim award compelling PGN to comply with the DAB Decision (the InterimAward). CRWobtained leave from the High Court to enforce the InterimAward against PGN, and in response, PGN applied to the High Court to set aside the award ( PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero) TBK v CRW Joint Operation (Indonesia) [2014] SGHC 146 ). In the High Court, the positions of the parties were as follows: –– PGN argued that the Interim Award was a “provisional” award intended to have finality only until the arbitral tribunal had rendered an award on the merits of the DAB Decision, and that section 19B of Singapore’s International Arbitration Act (the IAA) did not permit such provisional awards. PGN, therefore, asserted that the arbitral tribunal did not have the power to award such provisional relief –– In response, CRW asserted that the Interim Award was not “provisional”, but final and binding pursuant to section 19B(1) of the IAA. CRW argued that this was particularly so when read in conjunction with the terms of the Interim Award, which stated that it was final and binding “pending the final resolution of the [merits dispute] raised in these proceedings”. CRWwent on to argue that the arbitral tribunal’s eventual final award (in respect of its decision on the substances and merits of the DAB Decision) would not vary or otherwise affect the final and binding nature of the Interim Award

because it would determine (and would be final and binding in respect of) a different dispute, being the merits dispute The High Court agreed with CRW, deciding that the Interim Award was final and binding under section 19B of the IAA, that being, CRW’s undisputed substantive right to be “paid now” and PGN’s substantive obligation to “argue later”. Consequently, the Interim Award acknowledged that CRW’s substantive right to be paid promptly was final. It did not require that other aspects of the dispute be resolved with finality. PGN appealed the High Court’s decision. The Court of Appeal decision Essentially, PGN’s case followed a similar vein as in the High Court, essentially consisting of two arguments. –– First, PGN argued that the Interim Award was inconsistent with s 19B of the IAA on the basis that both CRW and the arbitral tribunal in 2011 envisaged that it would be “subject to future variation” (see paragraph 26). PGN asserted that CRW essentially sought only one relief in those arbitral proceedings, being to enforce the DAB Decision, and that it never intended for the Interim Award to finally resolve the merits dispute arising under the DAB Decision; indeed, PGN considered that CRWwas aware that any interim award made could subsequently be varied by the final award on the merits –– Secondly, PGN argued that the effect of Clause 20.4 of the Contract was that the DAB Decision ceased to be binding as soon at the tribunal made any award on the

35

Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker