PT First Media TBK v Astro Nusantara: Enforcement of Singapore Int'l Arbitration Award & Jurisdictional Challenge
In PT First Media TBK (formerly known as PT Broadband Multimedia TBK) v Astro Nusantara International BV and others, the Singapore Court of Appeal addressed whether a party to an international arbitration under the International Arbitration Act (IAA) can challenge the enforcement of an award rendered in Singapore based on an alleged lack of jurisdiction by the tribunal, especially when the party did not previously challenge the tribunal's jurisdictional finding. The court allowed the appeal in part, refusing enforcement of the award in relation to certain parties due to a lack of an arbitration agreement, while granting enforcement for other parties.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed in Part
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore Court of Appeal addresses enforcement of an international arbitration award and jurisdictional challenges under the IAA.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PT First Media TBK (formerly known as PT Broadband Multimedia TBK) | Appellant, Defendant | Corporation | Appeal Allowed in Part | Partial | Toby Landau, Edmund Kronenburg, Lye Huixian |
| Astro Nusantara International BV | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed in Part | Partial | David Joseph, Chou Sean Yu, Lim Wei Lee, Melvin Lum, Chan Xiao Wei, Daniel Tan |
| PT Ayunda Prima Mitra | Defendant | Corporation | Unknown | Other | |
| PT Direct Vision | Defendant | Corporation | Unknown | Other |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| V K Rajah | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Judith Prakash | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Toby Landau | Essex Court Chambers, London |
| Edmund Kronenburg | Braddell Brothers LLP |
| Lye Huixian | Braddell Brothers LLP |
| David Joseph | Essex Court Chambers, London |
| Chou Sean Yu | WongPartnership LLP |
| Lim Wei Lee | WongPartnership LLP |
| Melvin Lum | WongPartnership LLP |
| Chan Xiao Wei | WongPartnership LLP |
| Daniel Tan | WongPartnership LLP |
4. Facts
- The dispute arose out of a joint venture between companies belonging to an Indonesian conglomerate and companies within a Malaysian media group.
- The vehicle for the joint venture was to be PT Direct Vision.
- PT Ayunda Prima Mitra's obligations were guaranteed by PT First Media TBK.
- The terms of the joint venture were contained in a Subscription and Shareholders’ Agreement dated 11 March 2005.
- A dispute arose over the continued funding of PT Direct Vision.
- Astro commenced Arbitration No 62 of 2008 at the SIAC against First Media, Ayunda, and Direct Vision.
- The tribunal rendered an award on preliminary issues, holding that it had the power to join the 6th to 8th Respondents.
5. Formal Citations
- PT First Media TBK (formerly known as PT Broadband Multimedia TBK) v Astro Nusantara International BV and others and another appeal, Civil Appeals Nos 150 and 151 of 2012, [2013] SGCA 57
- Astro Nusantara International BV and others v PT Ayunda Prima Mitra and others, , [2013] 1 SLR 636
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Subscription and Shareholders’ Agreement signed | |
| Deadline for fulfilling conditions precedent in Subscription and Shareholders’ Agreement | |
| Ayunda commenced court proceedings in Indonesia | |
| Astro commenced Arbitration No 62 at the Singapore International Arbitration Centre | |
| Tribunal directed a preliminary hearing to determine the Joinder Application | |
| Tribunal rendered the Award on Preliminary Issues | |
| Tribunal rendered four other awards | |
| Tribunal rendered the Final Award | |
| Leave to enforce four awards was given in Originating Summonses No 807 of 2010 | |
| Leave to enforce the remaining award was given in Originating Summons No 913 of 2010 | |
| Astro entered judgments in Singapore on the Awards against them | |
| First Media applied to set aside the judgments | |
| Assistant Registrar set aside the judgments against First Media and granted First Media leave to apply to set aside the Enforcement Orders | |
| First Media caused two summonses to be issued to set aside the Enforcement Orders granted in OS 807/2010 and OS 913/2010 | |
| Civil Appeals Nos 150 and 151 of 2012 are First Media’s appeals against the Judge’s decision | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Enforcement of Arbitral Awards
- Outcome: The court held that the enforcement of domestic international awards is governed by s 19 of the IAA, the construction of which must be consonant with the underlying philosophy of the Model Law.
- Category: Substantive
- Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal
- Outcome: The court held that the tribunal's exercise of its power under r 24(b) to join the 6th to 8th Respondents to the Arbitration was improper with the corollary that no express agreement to arbitrate existed between the 6th to 8th Respondents and FM.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Waiver of Rights
- Outcome: The court held that FM did not waive its rights or conduct itself in such a way that it is estopped from raising the Joinder Objection.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Enforcement of Arbitral Award
- Setting Aside Enforcement Orders
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Arbitration
11. Industries
- Media
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Astro Nusantara International BV and others v PT Ayunda Prima Mitra and others | High Court | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 636 | Singapore | The judgment of the High Court judge against which the present appeals have been brought. |
| Prodexport State Company for Foreign Trade v E D & F Man Ltd | English High Court | Yes | [1973] 1 QB 389 | England | Discusses the interaction between setting aside and enforcement under the 1950 English Arbitration Act. |
| Middlemiss & Gould v Hartlepool Corporation | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1972] 1 WLR 1643 | England | Discusses the power to enforce an award unless there is a real ground for doubting the validity of the award. |
| Dalmia Cement Ltd v National Bank of Pakistan | English High Court | Yes | [1975] 1 QB 9 | England | Describes the power to enforce domestic awards under s 26 as an exercise of discretionary jurisdiction. |
| Kruse v Questier | English High Court | Yes | [1953] 1 QB 669 | England | Discusses the argument that an award was made without jurisdiction when the submission to arbitration became invalid. |
| Jugoslavenska Oceanska Plovidba v Castle Investment Co Inc | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1974] 1 QB 292 | England | Discusses the authority, jurisdiction and power of English arbitrators to make awards in a foreign currency. |
| Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation and others v Privalov and others | Unknown | Yes | [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 254 | Unknown | Cited for the principle of separability. |
| Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Co v Ministry of Religious Affairs of the Government of Pakistan | UK Supreme Court | Yes | [2011] 1 AC 763 | United Kingdom | Discusses the implications of the New York Convention on whether and how the pursuit of active remedies in the seat of arbitration might be relevant to enforcement proceedings. |
| Dallah Estate and Tourism Holding Company v Ministry of Religious Affairs of the Government of Pakistan | England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) | Yes | [2009] EWCA Civ 755 | England and Wales | Discusses whether the New York Convention permits a party to resist enforcement even after an unsuccessful active challenge. |
| Gujarat NRE Coke Limited v Coeclerici Asia (Pte) Ltd | Federal Court of Australia Full Court | Yes | [2013] FCAFC 109 | Australia | Discusses whether the New York Convention permits a party to resist enforcement even after an unsuccessful active challenge. |
| Hilmarton Ltd v Omnium de traitement et de valorisation | Cour de Cassation | Yes | (1995) XX Yearbook Comm Arb 663–665 | France | Discusses the recognition of transnational arbitral awards. |
| Omnium de Traitement et de Valorisation – OTV v Hilmarton | Unknown | Yes | (1994) XIX Yearbook Comm Arb 214–222 | Switzerland | Discusses the annulment of an award on the basis that it had misconstrued what constituted an affront to morality in Swiss law. |
| The Arab Republic of Egypt v Chromalloy Aeroservices, Inc | Cour d’Appel de Paris | Yes | (1997) XXII Yearbook Comm Arb 691–695 | France | Discusses the recognition of transnational arbitral awards. |
| IMC Aviation Solutions Pty Ltd v Altain Khuder LLC | Victoria Court of Appeal | Yes | (2011) 253 FLR 9 | Australia | Discusses whether the existence of an arbitration agreement was a precondition for enforcement. |
| Yukos Oil Company v Dardana Limited | England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) | Yes | [2002] EWCA Civ 543 | England and Wales | Discusses the overlap between the two stages of the enforcement process. |
| Aloe Vera of America, Inc v Asianic Food (S) Pte Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [2006] 3 SLR(R) 174 | Singapore | Discusses whether a particular person was a party to an arbitration agreement. |
| Denmark Skibstekniske Konsulenter A/S I Likvidation (formerly known as Knud E Hansen A/S) v Ultrapolis 3000 Investments Ltd (formerly known as Ultrapolis 3000 Theme Park Investments Ltd) | High Court | Yes | [2010] 3 SLR 661 | Singapore | Discusses whether the arbitration clause in a standard form was incorporated into the main agreement between the parties. |
| Syska v Vivendi Universal SA | Unknown | Yes | [2009] 1 All ER (Comm) 244 | Unknown | Explains the doctrine of 'double-separability'. |
| Black Clawson International Ltd v Papierwerke Wladhof-Aschaffenburg AG | Unknown | Yes | [1981] 2 Lloyd's Rep 446 | Unknown | Cited for the doctrine of 'double-separability'. |
| Unisys International Services Ltd v Eastern Counties Newspapers Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [1991] 1 Lloyd's Rep 538 | Unknown | Cited for the doctrine of 'double-separability'. |
| Galsworthy Ltd of the Republic of Liberia v Glory Wealth Shipping Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2011] 1 SLR 727 | Singapore | Evidences the exercise of de novo judicial review. |
| Shell Egypt West Manzala GmbH and another v Dana Gas Egypt Limited (formerly Centurion Petroleum Corporation) | Unknown | Yes | [2009] 2 CLC 481 | Unknown | Interprets the equivalent provision in the 1996 English Arbitration Act, s 69. |
| Tang Boon Jek Jeffrey v Tan Poh Leng Stanley | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 273 | Singapore | The insertion of ss 19A and 19B was meant to legislatively overrule this case. |
| Motor Oils Hellas (Corinth) Refineries SA v Shipping Corporation of India (The Kanchenjunga) | Unknown | Yes | [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 391 | Unknown | Defines the operation of waiver. |
| Chai Cher Watt (t/a Chuang Aik Engineering Works) v SDL Technologies Pte Ltd and another appeal | Unknown | Yes | [2012] 1 SLR 152 | Unknown | Defines the operation of waiver. |
| Pertamina Energy Trading Limited v Credit Suisse | Unknown | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 273 | Unknown | Defines the concept of estoppel. |
| Hong Leong Singapore Finance Ltd v United Overseas Bank Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 292 | Unknown | Defines the concept of proprietary estoppel. |
| Goodman v Sayers | Unknown | Yes | (1820) 2 J & W 249 | Unknown | Discusses whether part satisfaction of an award constitutes clear and unequivocal acceptance of it. |
| PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SA | Unknown | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 597 | Unknown | Discusses the definition of ‘award’. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| SIAC Rules (3rd Ed, 1 July 2007) |
| 1985 London Court of International Arbitration Rules |
| 1998 London Court of International Arbitration Rules |
| Swiss Rules of International Arbitration (June 2012) |
| SIAC Rules (5th Ed, 1 April 2013) |
| SIAC Rules (1st Ed, 1 September 1991) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Arbitration Act 1950 | England |
| Singapore Arbitration Act 1953 (Act 14 of 1953) | Singapore |
| Singapore Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| International Arbitration (Amendment) Act (No 38 of 2001) | Singapore |
| Law on Arbitration (Official Gazette no 88/2001) | Croatia |
| Austrian Code of Civil Procedure | Austria |
| German Zivilprozessordnung | Germany |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- International Arbitration Act
- Model Law
- Singapore International Arbitration Centre
- Subscription and Shareholders’ Agreement
- Joinder
- Waiver
- Estoppel
- Choice of Remedies
- Domestic International Award
15.2 Keywords
- arbitration
- enforcement
- jurisdiction
- international arbitration
- singapore
- arbitral award
- arbitration agreement
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- Enforcement of Awards
- Jurisdiction
- Civil Procedure
17. Areas of Law
- Arbitration Law
- International Arbitration
- Civil Procedure