PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia v Dexia Bank: Setting Aside Arbitral Award for Jurisdictional Conflict

In PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SA, the Singapore High Court heard an application by PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia to set aside an arbitration award. The applicant argued that the award conflicted with a previous award and breached public policy, exceeded the scope of submission to arbitration, and violated natural justice. The court dismissed the application, finding no grounds to set aside the award. The court held that the attack on the Award as being contrary to the Previous Award is an attack that has its foundation in a dissatisfaction with the way in which the legal principles encapsulated in s 19B of the Act seem to have been ignored, rather than an attack founded on the ground of public policy.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Motion dismissed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Arbitration

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court dismisses PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia's application to set aside an arbitral award, finding no conflict with public policy.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero)ApplicantCorporationMotion dismissedLost
Dexia Bank SARespondentCorporationMotion dismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Judith PrakashJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Prakash MulaniM and A Law Corporation
Alvin ChangM and A Law Corporation
Aftab A KhanM and A Law Corporation
Joseph AngTan Kok Quan Partnership

4. Facts

  1. PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia sought to set aside an arbitral award.
  2. The award dismissed arbitration proceedings for lack of jurisdiction.
  3. The applicant alleged the award conflicted with a previous award.
  4. The applicant claimed a breach of natural justice occurred.
  5. The Tribunal determined preliminary jurisdictional issues without an oral hearing.
  6. The Previous Tribunal found a note of the June 2001 meeting irrelevant.
  7. The Tribunal found the applicant was estopped from raising the issue of the June 2001 meeting.

5. Formal Citations

  1. PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SA, , OM 8/2004

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Noteholders’ meeting held to approve the Restructuring Scheme.
Notice of arbitration leading to the Previous Arbitration was issued.
Issuer gave notice of a meeting to ratify resolutions passed at the February 2000 meeting.
Ratification meeting was first held.
Adjourned ratification meeting was held.
Previous Arbitration was heard.
Applicant applied to discharge the injunction.
Court observed that the Issuer was not precluded from taking steps that might render the BI Notes void or ineffective.
Previous Tribunal issued an award granting the respondent’s claim.
Applicant issued a notice of arbitration against the respondent.
SIAC appointed a three-man arbitration tribunal.
Preliminary meeting was held.
Tribunal ordered that oral submissions be heard.
Respondent alleged that the arbitration proceedings were allegedly “moot”.
Tribunal directed the applicant to respond to these allegations.
Tribunal gave further directions in relation to the submissions on the preliminary objections.
Tribunal issued an award determining the preliminary issues.
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Setting Aside Arbitral Award
    • Outcome: The court found no grounds to set aside the award.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Conflict with public policy
      • Issues beyond submission to arbitration
      • Breach of natural justice
      • Failure to provide opportunity to present case
  2. Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal
    • Outcome: The court determined that the Tribunal had the power to determine its own jurisdiction under the SIAC Rules which in this respect reflect Art 16(1) of the Model Law.
    • Category: Jurisdictional
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Issue estoppel
      • Res judicata

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Setting aside of arbitration award
  2. Dismissal of preliminary issues/objections
  3. Remittal of Arbitration back to the arbitral tribunal for hearing

9. Cause of Actions

  • Setting aside of arbitral award

10. Practice Areas

  • Arbitration
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Banking
  • Insurance

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
John Holland Pty Ltd v Toyo Engineering CorpN/AYes[2001] 2 SLR 262N/ACited for the principle that to set aside an award on public policy grounds, the specific public policy must be identified and the conflict with the award demonstrated.
Mahon v Air New Zealand LtdN/AYes[1984] AC 808N/ACited regarding the necessity of basing decisions on evidence with probative value and informing affected parties.
Zermalt Holdings SA v Nu-Life Upholstery Repairs LtdN/AYes[1985] 2 EGLR 14N/ACited regarding the duty of an arbitral tribunal to ensure fairness in arbitration hearings.
The Owners of the MV Myron v Tradax Export SAN/AYes[1970] 1 QB 527N/ACited regarding the duty of arbitrators to address doubts about a party's understanding of the case against them.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
r 26 of the SIAC Rules (2nd Ed, 22nd October 1997)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Section 19B International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Arbitration award
  • Setting aside
  • Jurisdiction
  • Public policy
  • Natural justice
  • Issue estoppel
  • UNCITRAL Model Law
  • International Arbitration Act
  • Preliminary issues
  • Previous award

15.2 Keywords

  • arbitration
  • award
  • setting aside
  • jurisdiction
  • public policy
  • natural justice
  • Singapore
  • Dexia Bank
  • PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Arbitration95
International Commercial Arbitration90
International Arbitration Act85
Jurisdiction70
Natural justice60
Estoppel50
Foreign arbitral award40
Summary Judgement30
Contract Law20

16. Subjects

  • Arbitration
  • International Arbitration
  • Civil Procedure