Astro Nusantara v PT Ayunda: Enforcement of International Arbitration Awards & Jurisdictional Challenges
In Astro Nusantara International BV and others v PT Ayunda Prima Mitra and others, the Singapore High Court addressed applications concerning the enforcement of five domestic international arbitration awards. The plaintiffs, Astro Nusantara International BV and others, sought to reverse the assistant registrar's decision to set aside judgments against PT First Media TBK (FM) and grant FM leave to challenge the enforcement orders. FM filed summonses to set aside the enforcement orders, arguing lack of jurisdiction. The High Court dismissed both the plaintiffs' appeals and FM's summonses, upholding the validity of the arbitration awards and rejecting FM's jurisdictional challenge.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Registrar's Appeals dismissed; Summonses dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court judgment on enforcing international arbitration awards, addressing jurisdictional challenges and service of enforcement orders.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Astro Nusantara International BV | Plaintiff | Corporation | Appeals Dismissed | Won | David Joseph, Chou Sean Yu, Lim Wei Lee, Melvin Lum, Chan Xiao Wei, Daniel Tan |
| Astro Nusantara Holdings BV | Plaintiff | Corporation | Appeals Dismissed | Won | David Joseph, Chou Sean Yu, Lim Wei Lee, Melvin Lum, Chan Xiao Wei, Daniel Tan |
| Astro Multimedia Corporation NV | Plaintiff | Corporation | Appeals Dismissed | Won | David Joseph, Chou Sean Yu, Lim Wei Lee, Melvin Lum, Chan Xiao Wei, Daniel Tan |
| Astro Multimedia NV | Plaintiff | Corporation | Appeals Dismissed | Won | David Joseph, Chou Sean Yu, Lim Wei Lee, Melvin Lum, Chan Xiao Wei, Daniel Tan |
| Astro Overseas Limited (formerly known as AAAN (Bermuda) Limited) | Plaintiff | Corporation | Appeals Dismissed | Won | David Joseph, Chou Sean Yu, Lim Wei Lee, Melvin Lum, Chan Xiao Wei, Daniel Tan |
| Astro All Asia Networks PLC | Plaintiff | Corporation | Appeals Dismissed | Won | David Joseph, Chou Sean Yu, Lim Wei Lee, Melvin Lum, Chan Xiao Wei, Daniel Tan |
| Measat Broadcast Network Systems Sdn Bhd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Appeals Dismissed | Won | David Joseph, Chou Sean Yu, Lim Wei Lee, Melvin Lum, Chan Xiao Wei, Daniel Tan |
| All Asia Multimedia Networks FZ-LLC | Plaintiff | Corporation | Appeals Dismissed | Won | David Joseph, Chou Sean Yu, Lim Wei Lee, Melvin Lum, Chan Xiao Wei, Daniel Tan |
| PT Ayunda Prima Mitra | Defendant | Corporation | Judgment remains valid, binding and conclusive | Lost | |
| PT First Media TBK (formerly known as PT Broadband Multimedia TBK) | Defendant | Corporation | Summonses Dismissed | Lost | Toby Landau, Edmund Kronenburg, Lye Huixian |
| PT Direct Vision | Defendant | Corporation | Judgment remains valid, binding and conclusive | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| David Joseph | WongPartnership LLP |
| Chou Sean Yu | WongPartnership LLP |
| Lim Wei Lee | WongPartnership LLP |
| Melvin Lum | WongPartnership LLP |
| Chan Xiao Wei | WongPartnership LLP |
| Daniel Tan | WongPartnership LLP |
| Toby Landau | Braddell Brothers LLP |
| Edmund Kronenburg | Braddell Brothers LLP |
| Lye Huixian | Braddell Brothers LLP |
4. Facts
- Astro and Lippo entered a joint venture to provide DTH services in Indonesia.
- The Subscription and Shareholders Agreement (SSA) was executed on 11 March 2005.
- P6 to P8 began providing supporting services and funding to D3 at FM’s request.
- The Service Agreements were never concluded.
- A dispute arose over the provision of the supporting services and funding.
- The Plaintiffs commenced arbitration on 6 October 2008 with Singapore as the seat.
- The Tribunal issued the 7 May 2009 Award finding that it had jurisdiction to join P6 to P8 to the Arbitration.
5. Formal Citations
- Astro Nusantara International BV and others v PT Ayunda Prima Mitra and others, Originating Summons No 807 of 2010 (Registrar's Appeal No 278 of 2011 and Summons No 4065 of 2011) and Originating Summons No 913 of 2010 (Registrar's Appeal No 279 of 2011 and Summons No 4064 of 2011), [2012] SGHC 212
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Plaintiffs granted leave to enforce Singapore Awards via ex parte order. | |
| Plaintiffs granted leave to enforce Singapore Awards via ex parte order. | |
| Plaintiffs obtained judgment in terms of Singapore Awards in Hong Kong. | |
| Enforcement Orders purportedly served on FM. | |
| Plaintiffs entered judgments against all three defendants. | |
| FM came to know of the 2011 Judgments from a letter from WongPartnership. | |
| Assistant Registrar set aside the 2011 Judgments against FM. | |
| FM filed Summons No 4064 of 2011 and Summons No 4065 of 2011. | |
| Hearing for RA 278, RA 279, SUM 4064 and SUM 4065 began. | |
| Hearing for RA 278, RA 279, SUM 4064 and SUM 4065 concluded. | |
| Parties invited to submit further on two questions. | |
| Plaintiffs and FM tendered further submissions. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Enforcement of International Arbitration Awards
- Outcome: The court upheld the validity of the arbitration awards and dismissed the jurisdictional challenge.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Jurisdictional challenge to enforcement
- Service of enforcement orders
- Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal
- Outcome: The court found that the party had forfeited its right to challenge jurisdiction by failing to appeal the preliminary ruling.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Joinder of parties to arbitration
- Challenge to jurisdiction after failing to appeal preliminary ruling
- Service of Court Orders
- Outcome: The court found that there was no proper service of the Enforcement Orders.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Validity of service under Indonesian law
- Curing irregularities in service
8. Remedies Sought
- Enforcement of Arbitration Award
- Injunctive Relief
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Restitutionary Relief
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Arbitration
11. Industries
- Media
- Telecommunications
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ITC Global Holdings Pte Ltd (In liquidation) v ITC Ltd and others | High Court | Yes | [2011] SGHC 150 | Singapore | Cited regarding the court's discretion to cure irregularities in service. |
| Pacific Recreation Pte Ltd v SY Technology Inc | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 491 | Singapore | Cited for the role of an expert on foreign law. |
| MCC Proceeds Inc v Bishopsgate Investment Trust plc | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] CLC 417 | England and Wales | Cited for the function of an expert on foreign law. |
| Pacific Assets Management Ltd and others v Chen Lip Keong | High Court | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 658 | Singapore | Cited regarding validity of service as a matter for the lex fori. |
| Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Company v The Ministry of Religious Affairs, Government of Pakistan | United Kingdom Supreme Court | Yes | [2011] 1 AC 763 | United Kingdom | Mentioned as emanating from the UK, which is out of line with other Model Law countries. |
| Tjong Very Sumito and others v Antig Investments Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 732 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of finality in the arbitral process. |
| Tang Boon Jek Jeffrey v Tan Poh Leng Stanley | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 273 | Singapore | Cited as the reason for enacting s 19B of the IAA. |
| ABC v XYZ Co Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR(R) 546 | Singapore | Illustrates the strictness of the prescribed three-month time limit. |
| AJU v AJT | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 739 | Singapore | Made it clear that there is no room for an expansion of grounds under s 19B(1) of the IAA. |
| Soh Beng Tee & Co Pte Ltd v Fairmount Development Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 86 | Singapore | Summarizing the court’s approach towards natural justice. |
| Tan Poh Leng Stanley v Tang Boon Jek Jeffrey | High Court | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR(R) 847 | Singapore | Cited for obiter regarding the right to request the High Court for a decision on the preliminary decision is an option. |
| Imprimerie Régionale ARL Ltée v George Ghanotakis | Quebec Superior Court | Yes | [2004] CanLII 23270 (QC CS) | Canada | Rejected the submission that a failure to bring a challenge to jurisdiction under Art 943.2 of the CPC within 30 days did not prevent it from raising such objection to oppose recognition and enforcement. |
| Oberlandesgericht, Celle, Germany | German Court of Appeal | Yes | 8 Sch 11_02, 4 September 2003 | Germany | Refused a declaration of enforcement as the defendant, who had raised its objections regarding the invalidity of the arbitration agreement before the arbitral tribunal and had not participated in the oral hearing, did not have the opportunity to object to the arbitral tribunal’s decision. |
| China Nanhai Oil Joint Service Corporation Shenshen Branch v Gee Tai Holdings Co Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1995] 2 HKLR 215 | Hong Kong | Suggested that a party may be estopped from raising a challenge to jurisdiction at the setting-aside or the enforcement stage where it fails to appeal an interim award on jurisdiction under Art 16(3) of the Model Law. |
| Jiangxi Provincial Metal and Minerals Import and Export Corporation v Sulanser Co Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1995] HKCFI 449 | Hong Kong | Applied the doctrine of estoppel to the conduct of the defendant and held that it was not open to the defendant to revive the point as to the validity of the arbitration agreement under the law of the People’s Republic of China at the post-award stage. |
| Christian Mutual Insurance Company & Central United Life Insurance Company & Connecticut Reassurance Corporation v Ace Bermuda Insurance Limited | Bermudan Court of Appeal | Yes | [2002] Bda LR 56 | Bermuda | Ruled that an award on jurisdiction could be challenged under Art 34 at the setting-aside stage even if the party had successfully challenged that award under Art 16(3). |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 69A r 2(4) |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 69A r 6(1) |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 69A r 6(4) |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 69A r 6(5) |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 40A r 2 |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 92 r 4 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Herziene Indonesisch Reglement (S.1848-16)(Indonesia) | Indonesia |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Domestic International Award
- Enforcement Orders
- Jurisdictional Challenge
- SIAC Rules
- UNCITRAL Model Law
- SSA
- DTH services
- Supporting services and funding
15.2 Keywords
- arbitration
- enforcement
- jurisdiction
- international
- singapore
- award
- service
- Indonesia
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- International Commercial Arbitration
- Jurisdiction
- Civil Procedure
17. Areas of Law
- Arbitration Law
- Civil Procedure
- International Arbitration