PT Transportasi Gas Indonesia v Conocophillips (Grissik) Ltd & Anor [2016] EWHC 2834 (Comm) (10 November 2016)

PT Transportasi Gas Indonesia v Conocophillips (Grissik) Ltd & Anor [2016] EWHC 2834 (Comm) (10 November 2016)

The tribunal addressed and rejected TGI's inconsistency defence, finding no authority or basis in Indonesian law or public policy to render the promissory warranties unenforceable. The tribunal did not exceed its powers, commit a serious irregularity, or act contrary to English public policy. The section 68 application was wholly without merit and must be dismissed; leave to enforce the award is granted.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 2834 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: PT Transportasi Gas Indonesia; Defendant: ConocoPhillips (Grissik) Ltd; Defendant: PetroChina International Jabung Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Arbitration Challenge and Enforcement / Judgment on Section 68 Challenge and Section 66 Enforcement Application
Outcome
TGI's section 68 application dismissed; Conoco's application for leave to enforce the award granted.
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68, Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, Mandatory Law and Public Policy, Interpretation of Promissory Warranties, Damages for Breach of Contract
Arbitration Commercial Law Conflict of Laws Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68 Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Mandatory Law and Public Policy Interpretation of Promissory Warranties Damages for Breach of Contract

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PT Transportasi Gas Indonesia

Claimant

ConocoPhillips (Grissik) Ltd

Defendant

PetroChina International Jabung Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Arbitration Challenge and Enforcement / Judgment on Section 68 Challenge and Section 66 Enforcement Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral tribunal committed a serious irregularity under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal exceeded its powers by making an award contrary to Indonesian law
  3. 3 Whether the tribunal failed to deal with the inconsistency defence

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal addressed and rejected TGI's inconsistency defence, finding no authority or basis in Indonesian law or public policy to render the promissory warranties unenforceable. The tribunal did not exceed its powers, commit a serious irregularity, or act contrary to English public policy. The section 68 application was wholly without merit and must be dismissed; leave to enforce the award is granted.

Court Disposition

TGI's section 68 application dismissed; Conoco's application for leave to enforce the award granted.

Orders

  • TGI's section 68 application is dismissed.
  • Conoco is granted leave to enforce the award as a judgment of the court.