Petroleum Company of Trinidad and Tobago Ltd v Samsung Engineering Trinidad Co Ltd [2017] EWHC 3055 (TCC) (30 November 2017)

Petroleum Company of Trinidad and Tobago Ltd v Samsung Engineering Trinidad Co Ltd [2017] EWHC 3055 (TCC) (30 November 2017)

The tribunal's jurisdiction was limited to the Onshore Agreement by the Terms of Reference and pleadings; there was no claim under the Offshore or Linkage Agreements, so the tribunal could only apply the cap in the Onshore Agreement. The challenge did not concern substantive jurisdiction but was a matter of contract construction, and thus the s.67 application failed.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 3055 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant / Respondent in Arbitration: Petroleum Company of Trinidad and Tobago Limited; Defendant / Claimant in Arbitration: Samsung Engineering Trinidad Co. Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Challenge Under S.67 Arbitration Act 1996 / High Court Judgment on Application to Set Aside/vary Arbitral Award
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Arbitral Jurisdiction, Interpretation of Arbitration Agreements, Liquidated Damages, Contract Construction, Terms of Reference in Arbitration
Arbitration Construction Law Contract Law Arbitral Jurisdiction Interpretation of Arbitration Agreements Liquidated Damages Contract Construction Terms of Reference in Arbitration

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Petroleum Company of Trinidad and Tobago Limited

Claimant / Respondent in Arbitration

Samsung Engineering Trinidad Co. Limited

Defendant / Claimant in Arbitration

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Challenge Under S.67 Arbitration Act 1996 / High Court Judgment on Application to Set Aside/vary Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction in respect of liquidated damages was limited to the cap in the Onshore Agreement
  2. 2 Whether the challenge to the arbitral award was a matter of substantive jurisdiction under s.67 Arbitration Act 1996

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal's jurisdiction was limited to the Onshore Agreement by the Terms of Reference and pleadings; there was no claim under the Offshore or Linkage Agreements, so the tribunal could only apply the cap in the Onshore Agreement. The challenge did not concern substantive jurisdiction but was a matter of contract construction, and thus the s.67 application failed.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Application to set aside or vary the Partial Award under s.67 Arbitration Act 1996 is dismissed
  • Consequential matters to be addressed at handing down of judgment