DAB Decisions CRW PT 11

8/12/2019 DAB Decisions CRW PT 11

1/40

[2011] 4 SLR SINGAPORE LAW REPORTS 305

CRW Joint Operationv

PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero) TBK

[2011] SGCA 33

Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No 59 of 2010 (Summons No 4970 of 2010)

Chao Hick Tin JA, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA and V K Rajah JA1 December; 15 December 2010; 13 July 2011

Arbitration Award Final award Recourse against award Setting aside

Arbitral tribunals powers Whether arbitral tribunal acted in excess of its powersby rendering final award without considering merits of parties disputes Article34(2)(a)(iii) UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration

Arbitration Award Final award Recourse against award Setting aside Breach of rules of natural justice Whether party provided with proper opportunityto present its case Section 24(b) International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A,2002 Rev Ed) and Art 18 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial

Arbitration

Arbitration 1999 FIDIC Conditions of Contract for Construction (1st Ed, 1999) Effect of valid notice of dissatisfaction Decision of dispute adjudication board Binding but not final Role of arbitration tribunal constituted Need to examinemerits before final decision was made

Words and Phrases Final Binding 1999 FIDIC Conditions of Contractfor Construction (1st Ed, 1999)

Facts

The parties entered into a contract for the construction of a pipeline and opticalcable fibre network in Indonesia. The contract adopted, with certainmodifications, the 1999 FIDIC Conditions of Contract for Construction (1st Ed,

1999) (the 1999 FIDIC Conditions of Contract). A dispute arose between theparties and this was referred to a single-member dispute adjudication board(DAB) in accordance with the 1999 FIDIC Conditions of Contract.

The DAB decided that PGN owed the sum of US$17,298,834.57 to CRW, in

excess of the US$13,955,634 claimed by CRW. Dissatisfied with the DABdecision, PT (Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero) TBK (PGN) submitted a

notice of dissatisfaction (NOD) while CRW Joint Operation (CRW) issuedan invoice to PGN for US$17,298,834.57. PGN rejected the invoice on the basis

that the DAB decision was not final and binding under the 1999 FIDICConditions of Contract as it had filed a NOD.

As the parties could not reach a settlement pursuant to sub-cl 20.5 of the 1999FIDIC Conditions of Contract, CRW filed a request of arbitration under sub-cl 20.6 purportedly for the sole purpose of enforcing the DAB decision. On the

other hand, PGN submitted, inter alia, that CRWs request for prompt paymentshould be rejected as the DAB decision was not yet final and binding. It argued

[2011] 4 SLR Part 00-cases.book Page 305 Friday, October 14, 2011 3:31 PM


2/40

306 SINGAPORE LAW REPORTS [2011] 4 SLR

that the arbitral tribunal (the Arbitral Tribunal) was required to open up,review and revise the DAB decision pursuant to sub-cl 20.6.

Subsequent to a preliminary meeting, the Arbitral Tribunal issued a direction

that a preliminary hearing would be held to determine, inter alia, whether CRWwould be entitled to immediate payment and whether PGN was entitled to

request the Arbitral Tribunal to review the DAB decision. Under the terms ofreference, the Arbitral Tribunal was conferred an unfettered jurisdiction toadjudicate on all matters in dispute between the parties and was empowered tomake partial or interim awards if necessary.

After the preliminary hearing, the majority members of the Arbitral Tribunal(Majority Members) issued a Final Award, deciding that PGN was required

to make immediate payment to CRW of the sum decided by the DAB and that itwas not entitled to request for a review of the DAB decision. However, theMajority Members reserved the right of PGN to commence subsequentarbitration to review the DAB decision. On the other hand, the dissentingmember of the Arbitral Tribunal considered that a re-examination of the DABdecision was necessary and it was imperative to carry out a site visit tounderstand the actual condition of the construction project.

PGN filed an application to set aside the Final Award. The High Court Judgegranted the application on the basis that the Final Award was contrary to

Art 34(2)(a)(iii) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International CommercialArbitration (the Model Law). However, PGNs submissions based on the rulesof breach of natural justice and Article 34(2)(a)(iv) of the Model Law were

rejected. Dissatisfied with the decision, CRW appealed.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) While the court should not, without good reason, interfere with the

arbitral process by setting aside arbitral awards, it would not hesitate to do so if astatutorily prescribed ground was clearly established. An arbitral award might be

set aside based on the three broad categories of jurisdictional grounds,procedural grounds or substantive grounds: at [26] to [28].

(2) Article 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Model Law applied where an arbitral tribunalimproperly decided matters that had not been submitted to it or failed to decidematters that had been submitted to it. However, a failure to deal with every issuereferred to the arbitral tribunal did not render the arbitral award liable to be set

aside unless there had been real or actual prejudice to either (or both) of theparties to the dispute. In addition, mere errors of law or fact were insufficient towarrant setting aside an arbitral award: at [31] to [33].

(3) In order to set aside an arbitral award under s 24(b) of the InternationalArbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed) (the IAA), the court had to besatisfied, first, that the arbitral tribunal breached a rule of natural justice inmaking the arbitral award. Second, and more importantly, the court had to besatisfied that the breach of natural justice caused actual or real prejudice to theparty challenging the award, ie, the breach had to have altered the final outcomeof the arbitral proceedings in some meaningful way before curial interventionwas warranted: at [38].



3/40

[2011] 4 SLR

CRW Joint Operation v

PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero) TBK 307

(4) Under the 1999 FIDIC Conditions of Contract, where arbitralproceedings had been commenced in relation to a DAB decision for which a

NOD had been validly served by one or both of the parties, ie, a binding but non-final DAB decision, the arbitration took the form of a rehearing so that theentirety of the parties dispute(s) could be finally resolved. Pending the finalresolution, the arbitral tribunal could enforce the DAB decision by way of an

interim or partial award: at [61], [63] and [66].

(5) Where a NOD had been validly served, and either or both of the partiesfailed to comply with the binding but non-final DAB decision, sub-cl 20.6 of the

1999 FIDIC Conditions of Contract required the parties to finally settle theirdifferences in the samearbitration, both in respect of the non-compliance withthe DAB decision and in respect of the merits of that decision. Sub-clause 20.6

contemplated a single arbitration where all the existing differences between theparties arising from the DAB decision concerned would be resolved. Therespondent to the arbitral proceedings was able to raise the issues which it

wished the arbitral tribunal to consider by way of a defence. It was not necessaryto file a counterclaim: at [67].

(6) The Final Award was set aside under Art 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Model Law.

By issuing afinalaward which upheld the DAB decision without going into thesubstantive merits of the parties dispute, the Majority Members ignored theclear wordings of sub-cl 20.6 of the 1999 FIDIC Conditions of Contract andfundamentally altered the terrain of the entire proceedings as well as the arbitralaward which would have been issued if they had reviewed the merits of the DABdecision (regardless of what the final outcome might have been). PGN suffered

real prejudice as it was deprived of its contractual right to have the DAB decisionreviewed unless it incurred additional time and costs in commencing fresharbitration proceedings (assuming such an option were legally feasible): at [82]to [85].

(7) There was a breach of the rules of natural justice in the making of the FinalAward under s 24(b) of the IAA. PGN was not provided with a real opportunityto present its case on what was owing to CRW. PGNs inability to state clearly itsposition during the arbitral hearing was because it was meant to be a preliminary

hearing. PGN did not envisage having to present evidence at that stage. It wasentitled to have a proper opportunity to comprehensively present its case on theDAB decision at a hearing before the arbitral tribunal. However, it was deniedthis opportunity as the Majority Members summarily made the Final Awardwithout considering the merits of the real dispute between the parties. PGN

clearly suffered prejudice as a result: at [93] to [96].

(8) The courts residual discretion to decline to set aside an arbitral awardeven though one of the prescribed grounds for setting aside had been made out

should be exercised only if no prejudice had been sustained by the aggrievedparty. PGN suffered real prejudice as a result of the Majority Members acting inexcess of its jurisdiction and also in breach of the rules of natural justice. Therewas no basis to exercise the courts residual discretion: at [98] to [100].

Case(s) referred to

Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v Impregilo SpA[2006] 1 AC 221(refd)



4/40


Newspeed International Ltd v Citus Trading Pte Ltd[2003] 3 SLR(R) 1; [2003]3 SLR 1 (refd)

Paklito Investment Ltd v Klockner East Asia Ltd[1993] 2 HKLR 39 (refd)

PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SA[2007] 1 SLR(R) 597;[2007] 1 SLR 597 (folld)

PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero) TBK v CRW Joint Operation[2010] 4 SLR672 (refd)

Soh Beng Tee & Co Pte Ltd v Fairmount Development Pte Ltd[2007] 3 SLR(R) 86;[2007] 3 SLR 86 (folld)

Sui Southern Gas Co Ltd v Habibullah Coastal Power Co (Pte) Ltd[2010] 3 SLR 1(refd)

Legislation referred to

International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed) s 24(b), First ScheduleArt 34(2)(a)(iii) (consd);ss 24, 29, 31, First Schedule Arts 34(1), 34(2), 34(2)(a), 34(2)(a)(iv)

Arbitration Act 1996 (c 23)(UK) s 68(2)(b)

Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 341) (HK) s 44(2)(c)

Siraj Omar and Dipti Jauhar (Premier Law LLC) for the appellant;Philip Jeyaretnam SC and Wong Wai Han (Rodyk & Davidson LLP) for therespondent.

[Editorial note: The decision from which this appeal arose is reported at [2010]

4 SLR 672.]

13 July 2011 Judgment reserved.

V K Rajah JA (delivering the judgment of the court):

Introduction

1 This is an appeal by CRW Joint Operation (CRW) against thedecision of the High Court judge (the Judge) in PT Perusahaan GasNegara (Persero) TBK v CRW Joint Operation[2010] 4 SLR 672 (the GD)allowing the application by the respondent, PT Perusahaan Gas Negara(Persero) TBK (PGN), to set aside a final award dated 24 November 2009(the Final Award) issued by the majority members of the arbitral tribunal(the Majority Members) in International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)International Court of Arbitration Case No 16122/CYK (the Arbitration).

2 This appeal raises some interesting issues in relation to the effect of adecision by a dispute adjudication board (DAB) constituted pursuant tothe terms of a construction contract that has incorporated the provisions inConditions of Contract for Construction: For Building and EngineeringWorks Designed by the Employer (1st Ed, 1999) (the 1999 FIDIC RedBook) published by the Fdration Internationale des Ingnieurs-Conseils(FIDIC), a federation which aims to represent globally the consulting



5/40

[2011] 4 SLR



engineering industry by promoting the business interests of firms supplyingtechnology-based intellectual services for the built and natural environment(see (assessed on 8 July 2011)). The1999 FIDIC Red Book contains the standard provisions recommended byFIDIC for building or engineering contracts where the contractorundertakes works in accordance with a design provided by the employer.Despite the prevalence of these standard provisions in the constructionindustry, the issues raised in this appeal vis--vis the effect of a DABdecision do not, surprisingly, appear to have received any judicial scrutinyto date. In this judgment, we shall analyse the dispute resolution scheme inand the relevant clauses of the 1999 FIDIC Red Book. However, the salient

legal points cannot be understood without a statement of the backgroundfacts, to which we now turn.

Background facts

3 CRW is a tripartite joint operation established under the laws of theRepublic of Indonesia consisting of PT Citra Panji Manunggal, PT RemajaBangun Kencana Kontraktor and PT Winatek Widita. PGN is a publiclisted state-owned company established under the laws of the Republic ofIndonesia.

4 Pursuant to a contract dated 28 February 2006 entitled PipelineConstruction Contract For Grissik-Pagardewa Onshore Gas Transmission

Pipeline No 002500.PK/243/UT/2006 (the Pipeline Contract), PGNengaged CRW to design, procure, install, test and pre-commission a 36-inch diameter pipeline and an optical fibre cable running from Grissik toPagardewa in Indonesia. The Pipeline Contract adopted, with certainamendments, the standard provisions set out in the 1999 FIDIC Red Book(these standard provisions will be collectively referred to hereafter as the1999 FIDIC Conditions of Contract).

5 A dispute arose between the parties regarding 13 variation orderproposals submitted by CRW to PGN. In accordance with sub-cl 20.4 of the1999 FIDIC Conditions of Contract, the dispute was referred to a DABconsisting of a single member, Mr Iain Clark McIntosh (the Adjudicator),

under a dispute adjudication agreement dated 22 February 2008.6 In his written decision handed down on 25 November 2008, theAdjudicator awarded a sum of US$17,298,834.57 to CRW. He indicatedthat the documentary evidence produced by the parties, the access grantedto their files and records as well as the witnesses sworn statements negatedthe need for an oral hearing.

7 The Adjudicator made a detailed analysis of the construction projectundertaken by the parties (the Project), including the causes of delay (eg,late delivery of pipelines to the site and adverse ground conditions).Although the governing law of the Pipeline Contract was Indonesian law,



6/40


the Adjudicator referred extensively to common law cases on the variousissues raised by the parties and then gave his interpretation of the effect ofthe parties amendments to the 1999 FIDIC Conditions of Contract. Havingconsidered the legal and the factual positions, the Adjudicator elaboratedon his findings apropos the different heads of claim filed by CRW.Disappointed with the Adjudicators determination, PGN filed a notice ofdissatisfaction (hereafter referred to interchangeably as a NOD) on28 November 2008.

8 CRW, on the other hand, issued an invoice dated 3 December 2008 toPGN for the amount awarded by the Adjudicator (viz, the sum ofUS$17,298,834.57). Unsurprisingly, PGN rejected the invoice on the basisthat it had filed a NOD and, thus, the Adjudicators decision was not yetfinal and binding. It took the position that the parties should attempt anamicable settlement of their dispute in accordance with sub-cl 20.5 of the1999 FIDIC Conditions of Contract.

9 As the parties could not resolve their differences, CRW filed a requestfor arbitration (Request for Arbitration) on 13 February 2009 with theICC International Court of Arbitration pursuant to sub-cl 20.6 of the 1999FIDIC Conditions of Contract for the sole purpose of giving prompt effectto the [Adjudicators] [d]ecision. In response, PGN filed an answer toCRWs Request for Arbitration (Answer to Request for Arbitration)dated 24 April 2009 submitting that the Adjudicators decision was not yet

final and binding because it (PGN) had properly issued an NOD; thus, ithad no obligation to pay CRW the sum of US$17,298,834.57. PGN alsocontended that pursuant to sub-cl 20.6 of the 1999 FIDIC Conditions ofContract, the Adjudicators decision ought to be re-opened by an arbitraltribunal and CRWs request for prompt payment of the aforesaid sumshould be rejected.

10 On 3 April 2009, the ICC International Court of Arbitrationconfirmed the appointments of Mr Neil Kaplan (Mr Kaplan), who wasCRWs nominee, and Prof H Priyatna Abdurrasyid (Prof Abdurrasyid),who was PGNs nominee, as co-arbitrators of the arbitral tribunal whichwas to hear the parties dispute (the Arbitral Tribunal). On 30 April 2009,

Mr Alan J Thambiayah (Mr Thambiayah) was appointed as the chairmanof the Arbitral Tribunal by the ICC International Court of Arbitration uponthe proposal of the ICCs Singapore national committee.

11 At a preliminary meeting held on 1 June 2009, the parties and theArbitral Tribunal discussed, inter alia, whether there was any issue orquestion which would be appropriate to determine preliminarily. TheArbitral Tribunal, after consideration, gave the following directions on4 June 2009:

1. On the 16th and 17th September 2009[,] the Tribunal [ie, the ArbitralTribunal defined at [10] above] will hear the parties on:



7/40

[2011] 4 SLR



(i) whether [the] Tribunal should rule on the questions identifiedbelow as preliminary issues and if the Tribunal decides to rule on such

questions as preliminary issues,

(ii) the substantive answers to each question.

The Questions:

1. Whether [CRW is] entitled to immediate payment of the

US$17,298,834.57?

2. If the answer to question 1 above is either yes or no, is [PGN], in this

arbitration, entitled to request the Tribunal to open up, review and

revise the [Adjudicators] decision dated 25th November 2008 or anycertificate upon which it is based?

If preliminary issue 2 is answered in the positive

The Tribunal will issue appropriate directions, in consultation with the

parties, for inter alia, service of details or particulars of the parties caserelating to any opening up, review and revision of the [Adjudicators]decision dated 25th November 2008 and the procedure and timeline for suchcases to be heard and determined[,] including production of relevantdocuments, service of witness statements (including any expert witnesses),service of written opening statements dealing with fact, liability, quantum

and law, venue(s) and dates for hearing.

The two questions specified by the Arbitral Tribunal in the above extract viz, (a) whether CRW was entitled to immediate payment of the sum ofUS$17,298.834.57 awarded by the Adjudicator; and (b) whether PGN wasentitled, in the Arbitration, to request the Arbitral Tribunal to open up,review and revise the Adjudicators decision will hereafter be referred toas the First Preliminary Issue and the Second Preliminary Issuerespectively, and as the Preliminary Issues collectively.

12 On 17 June 2009, pursuant to Art 18 of the ICC Rules of Arbitrationin force as from 1 January 1998 (the ICC Rules of Arbitration), the partiessigned the terms of reference for the Arbitration (the TOR). (The TORwas admitted as further evidence for the hearing before this court by way of

CRWs application in Summons No 4970 of 2010, which we allowed, withcosts to PGN fixed at $500.) The TOR states:

II. PROVISIONS CONCERNING ARBITRATION AND CHOICE OFLAW

Sub-clauses 20.6 and 1.4 of the [1999 FIDIC] Conditions of Contract, forming part of the [Pipeline] Contract, provide, relevantly, as

follows:

20.6 Arbitration

Unless settled amicably, any dispute in respect of which the DABsdecision (if any) has not become final and binding shall be finally



8/40


settled by international arbitration. Unless otherwise agreed byboth Parties:

(a) the dispute shall be finally settled under the [ICC] Rules ofArbitration ,

(b) the dispute shall be settled by three arbitrators appointed inaccordance with these Rules, and

(c) the arbitration shall be conducted in the language forcommunications defined in Sub-Clause 1.4 [of the 1999 FIDICConditions of Contract.]

The arbitrator(s) shall have full power to open up, review and

revise any certificate, determination, instruction, opinion orvaluation of the Engineer [as defined in sub-cl 1.1.2.4 of the 1999FIDIC Conditions of Contract], and any decision of the DAB,relevant to the dispute. Nothing shall disqualify the Engineer frombeing called as a witness and giving evidence before thearbitrator(s) on any matter whatsoever relevant to the dispute.

Neither Party shall be limited in the proceedings before thearbitrator(s) to the evidence or arguments previously put beforethe DAB to obtain its decision, or to the reasons for dissatisfaction

given in its notice of dissatisfaction. Any decision of the DAB shallbe admissible in evidence in the arbitration.

Arbitration may be commenced prior to or after completion of the

Works[as defined in sub-cl 1.1.5.8 of the 1999 FIDIC Conditionsof Contract]. The obligations of the Parties, the Engineer and theDAB shall not be altered by reason of any arbitration beingconducted during the progress of the Works.

VII. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED

Subject to Article 19 of the ICC Rules [of Arbitration], the ArbitralTribunal shall resolve all issues of fact and law arising from the claims

and defences and pleadings as submitted by the Parties, includingfurther submissions which are relevant to the merits of the Parties

respective claims and defen[c]es including, but not limited to, thefollowing issues, as well as any additional issues of fact or law whichthe Arbitral Tribunal, in its own discretion, may deem necessary todecide for the purpose of rendering its arbitral award:

1. Whether [CRW is] entitled to any award/reliefs as claimed orany other relief flowing from the said claims?

2. Whether [PGN] is entitled to any award/reliefs as claimed or anyother relief flowing from the said claims?

3. Whether the [Adjudicators] decision is binding on and to begiven immediate effect by the Parties?



9/40

[2011] 4 SLR



4. Whether the [Adjudicators] decision is subject to be opened up,reviewed and revised in order to have an accurate and fair

conclusion pertaining to the dispute?

5. Whether [CRW] and [PGN] are entitled to the reimbursementof all costs and expenses arising out of these arbitrationproceedings, including but not limited to reasonable attorneysfees?

6. Whether [CRW] and [PGN] are entitled to any other relief?

VIII ESTIMATED AMOUNT IN DISPUTE

The total amount in dispute is presently quantified at

US$17,298,834.57 million. The Arbitral Tribunal reserves the right torevise the estimated amount in dispute by taking into account the

submissions made by [CRW] and [PGN] in the course of theproceedings.

XII APPLICABLE PROCEDURAL RULES AND OTHER MATTERS

By the execution of these Terms of Reference, the Arbitrators [ie,Mr Kaplan, Prof Abdurrasyid and Mr Thambiayah] confirm theacceptance of their appointments.

By the execution of these Terms of Reference, the Parties confirm that,on the date hereof, they have no ground for objecting to theArbitrators.

The Parties accept the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal to hear and

adjudicate upon all matters in dispute between them in thesearbitration proceedings.

The Arbitral Tribunal shall determine the procedure to be followed inthese arbitration proceedings subject to the applicable mandatoryprovisions of any Singapore statute relating to internationalarbitrations but otherwise in accordance with the ICC Rules [ofArbitration] and shall not be obliged to follow any particularmunicipal system of procedure.

With the exception of the time limit for the [f]inal [a]ward to berendered under Article 24 of the ICC Rules [of Arbitration], the

Arbitral Tribunal is authorised to impose and, if and when necessary,and after consultation with the Parties, to extend any time limit inthese arbitration proceedings.

The Arbitral Tribunal may make partial and/or interim awards aswell as procedural orders if deemed necessary or appropriate.

The Parties shall not be bound by strict rules of evidence and mayproduce evidence in any form permitted by the Arbitral Tribunal. TheArbitral Tribunal shall decide the relevance, cogency and weight to be

given to the evidence.

The Arbitral Tribunal may, at the request of a Party or on its ownvolition, order a Party to produce documents or records in the



10/40


possession or within the control of that Party. Any request forproduction shall identify sufficiently such document and set out the

reasons for the request.

A Party who knows that any provisions of, or requirements under, theapplicable procedural rules or any direction given by the ArbitralTribunal has not been complied with, and yet proceeds with the

arbitration proceedings without promptly recording any objection tosuch non-compliance, shall be deemed to have waived its right toobject.

[underlining, italics and bold in original; emphasis added in bold italics]

13 After the parties filed their respective memorials on the PreliminaryIssues and their respective replies thereto, the hearing of the PreliminaryIssues (the Arbitral Hearing) took place on 16 September 2009. Afterhearing the parties arguments, the Arbitral Tribunal reserved its decision.

14 On 24 November 2009, the Majority Members (namely,Mr Thambiayah and Mr Kaplan) issued what they described as a finalaward [emphasis added] in favour of CRW (ie, the Final Award definedat [1] above). With regard to the First Preliminary Issue, the MajorityMembers held that PGN had an obligation to make immediate payment ofthe sum of US$17,298,834.57 to CRW. As for the Second Preliminary Issue(ie, whether PGN was entitled to request the Arbitral Tribunal to open up,

review and revise the Adjudicators decision), the Majority Membersanswered this in the negative. However, they also reserved PGNs right tocommence an arbitration to seek to revise the [Adjudicators] decision.

15 On 26 November 2009, Prof Abdurrasyid issued a dissenting opinion.He emphasised that the Adjudicator had failed to apply Indonesian law,which was the governing law of the Pipeline Contract, and had alsoawarded CRW a sum of money in excess of the amount claimed (see also[71] below), which was prohibited under Indonesian law. InProf Abdurrasyids view, these factors made a re-examination of theAdjudicators decision necessary. Further, it was imperative to have a sitevisit to understand the real and actual condition of the [P]roject.

16 Having secured the Final Award, CRW promptly applied (viaOriginating Summons No 7 of 2010) for leave to enforce the Final Award inSingapore as though it were a judgment of a Singapore court. On 7 January2010, an order of court to that effect (the Enforcement Order) was made.PGN, on its part, filed separate applications to set aside the EnforcementOrder and the Final Award. The former application was adjourned pendingthe outcome of the latter application.



11/40

[2011] 4 SLR



The proceedings in the court below

The parties respective submissions before the Judge

17 At the hearing of its application to set aside the Final Award, PGNsubmitted that the Final Award ought to be set aside underArts 34(2)(a)(iii)34(2)(a)(iv) of the UNCITRAL Model Law onInternational Commercial Arbitration adopted by the United NationsCommission on International Trade Law on 21 June 1985 (the ModelLaw) and s 24(b) of the International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 RevEd) (the IAA). In particular, it submitted that:

(a) The Majority Members exceeded their mandate and jurisdictionin converting the Adjudicators decision into a final award withoutdetermining the merits of the parties underlying dispute and/orwithout determining whether the Adjudicators decision had beenmade in accordance with the provisions of the Pipeline Contract(citing Art 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Model Law).

(b) The arbitral procedure was not in accordance with what theparties had agreed on, which required the merits of the underlyingdispute and/or the accordance (or otherwise) of the Adjudicatorsdecision with the provisions of the Pipeline Contract to bedetermined prior to the making of a final award (citingArt 34(2)(a)(iv) of the Model Law).

(c) The Majority Members refusal and/or failure to hear the partieson the merits of the underlying dispute and/or the accordance of theAdjudicators decision with the provisions of the Pipeline Contractconstituted a breach of the rules of natural justice (citing s 24(b) of theIAA).

(d) The Adjudicators decision was not made in accordance withthe provisions of the Pipeline Contract as the Adjudicator did notapply the governing law of that contract (viz, Indonesian law), and/oradded new claims to the claims originally submitted by CRW, therebydouble-counting several claims which had previously been settled.

18 We should add that the last of the aforementioned grounds ofchallenge to the Final Award was briskly (and, in our view, rightly) rejectedby the Judge as being outside the scope of s 24(b) of the IAA andArt 34(2)(a) of the Model Law (see [10] of the GD). This particular groundof challenge is no longer in issue in the present appeal.

19 CRW, on its part, contended in the court below that PGNsapplication to set aside the Final Award was substantially an appeal on themerits of that award, which was not permissible. It characterised the partiesdispute on whether PGN was obliged to make immediate payment of thesum of US$17,298,834.57 as a second dispute between the parties (see



12/40


[4] of the GD), and explained that it had commenced the Arbitration for thepurpose of resolving that second dispute (the Second Dispute) inaccordance with the 1999 FIDIC Conditions of Contract. Its Request forArbitration, CRW contended, was strictly limited to the Second Dispute, ie,to the issue of whether PGN was obliged to immediately comply with theAdjudicators decision.

The Judges decision

20 The Judge did not accept CRWs main contention that PGNsapplication to set aside the Final Award was an appeal on the merits of theMajority Members decision. In her view, the issue was whether the

Majority Members had purported to exercise a power which they did nothave under the 1999 FIDIC Conditions of Contract in ordering PGN tomake immediate payment of the sum of US$17,298,834.57 to CRW (see[11] of the GD).

21 After a carefully considered analysis of cl 20 of the 1999 FIDICConditions of Contract, the Judge set aside the Final Award on the groundthat the Majority Members had exceeded the scope of the arbitrationprovisions in the 1999 FIDIC Conditions of Contract, namely, sub-cll 20.420.7 thereof (collectively referred to hereafter as the 1999 FIDICArbitration Provisions where appropriate). The Judge gave the followingexplanation for her decision on this point:

(a) The Majority Members had issued a final award on the SecondDispute even though that dispute had not been referred to theAdjudicator as required under the 1999 FIDIC Arbitration Provisions(see [30][31] and [37] of the GD); and

(b) even if the Second Dispute was referable to arbitration, the 1999FIDIC Arbitration Provisions did not entitle the Arbitral Tribunal tomake the Adjudicators decision final without first hearing the partieson the merits of that decision (see [33][37] of the GD).

22 Having decided in favour of PGN on the above ground (which is, inessence, the ground set out in Art 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Model Law), the Judgeproceeded to consider PGNs submissions apropos Art 34(2)(a)(iv) of the

Model Law and s 24(b) of the IAA. She rejected PGNs submissions on bothof these provisions ie, she allowed PGNs application to set aside the FinalAward based on Art 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Model Law alone.

23 Dissatisfied with the Judges decision to set aside the Final Award,CRW filed the present appeal.



13/40

[2011] 4 SLR



Issues arising in this appeal

24 The issues arising in this appeal are as follows:

(a) What was the Arbitral Tribunal appointed to decide in theArbitration? (This shall be referred to as Issue 1.)

(b) What is the structure of the dispute resolution procedure set outin the 1999 FIDIC Conditions of Contract? (This shall be referred toas Issue 2.)

(c) Was the Final Award issued in accordance with sub-cl 20.6 ofthe 1999 FIDIC Conditions of Contract? (This shall be referred to as

Issue 3.)

(d) If the answer to Issue 3 is No:

(i) did the Majority Members act in excess of theirjurisdiction (Issue 4); and

(ii) was there a breach of the rules of natural justice at theArbitral Hearing (Issue 5)?

(f) If the answer to Issue 4 and/or Issue 5 is yes, should the courtexercise its residual discretion to refuse to set aside the Final Award?(This shall be referred to as Issue 6.)

Before we proceed to analyse these issues, we shall first outline the relevantlegal principles apropos the courts discretionary power to set asideinternational arbitral awards (referred to hereafter as arbitral awardssimpliciterfor short).

The courts discretionary power to set aside arbitral awards

Overview

25 The courts power to set aside an arbitral award is limited to settingaside based on the grounds provided under Art 34 of the Model Law ands 24 of the IAA. As declared by this court in Soh Beng Tee & Co Pte Ltd vFairmount Development Pte Ltd [2007] 3 SLR(R) 86 (Soh Beng Tee)at [59], the current legal framework prescribes that the courts should notwithout good reason interfere in the arbitral process. This policy ofminimal curial intervention by respecting finality in the arbitral processacknowledges the primacy which ought to be given to the disputeresolution mechanism that the parties have expressly chosen.

26 However, it has also been said (correctly) that no State will permit abinding arbitral award to be given or enforced within its territory withoutbeing able to review the award, or, at least, without allowing the parties anopportunity to address the court if there has been a violation of due processor other irregularities in the arbitral proceedings (see Peter Binder,



14/40


International Commercial Arbitration and Conciliation in UNCITRALModel Law Jurisdictions(Sweet & Maxwell, 3rd Ed, 2010) at para 7-001).

27 While the Singapore courts infrequently exercise their power to setaside arbitral awards, they will unhesitatingly do so if a statutorilyprescribed ground for setting aside an arbitral award is clearly established.The relevant grounds in this regard can be classified into three broadcategories (see generally Nigel Blackaby et al, Redfern and Hunter onInternational Arbitration(Oxford University Press, 5th Ed, 2009) (Redfernand Hunter) at paras 10.3010.86). First, an award may be challenged onjurisdictional grounds (ie, the non-existence of a valid and bindingarbitration clause, or other grounds that go to the adjudicability of the claim

determined by the arbitral tribunal). Second, an award may be challengedon procedural grounds (eg, failure to give proper notice of the appointmentof an arbitrator), and, third, the award may be challenged on substantivegrounds (eg, breach of the public policy of the place of arbitration).

The grounds for setting aside in the present case

28 As stated at [22] above, in the court below, the Judge set aside theFinal Award pursuant to Art 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Model Law only, relying onthe specific ground that the Majority Members had exceeded theirjurisdiction. She rejected PGNs arguments that the Final Award could alsobe set aside based on Art 34(2)(a)(iv) of the Model Law and s 24(b) of the

IAA. In this appeal, PGN does not dispute the Judges decision to reject itssubmissions on Art 34(2)(a)(iv) of the Model Law. Accordingly, we areconcerned only with the applicability of Art 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Model Lawand s 24(b) of the IAA.

Setting aside based on excess of jurisdiction: Article 34(2)(a)(iii) of the ModelLaw

29 Article 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Model Law states:

An arbitral award may be set aside by the court only if:

(a) the party making the application furnishes proof that:

(iii) the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or notfalling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, orcontains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submissionto arbitration, provided that, if the decisions on matters submittedto arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, onlythat part of the award which contains decisions on matters notsubmitted to arbitration may be set aside

[emphasis added]

30 In PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SA [2007]1 SLR(R) 597, this court held (at [44]) that the court had to adopt a two-



15/40

[2011] 4 SLR



stage enquiry in assessing whether an arbitral award ought to be set asideunder Art 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Model Law. Specifically, it had to determine:

(a) first, what matters were within the scope of submission to thearbitral tribunal; and

(b) second, whether the arbitral award involved such matters, orwhether it involved a new difference outside the scope of thesubmission to arbitration and accordingly irrelevant to the issuesrequiring determination [emphasis in original] (at [40]).

31 It is useful, at this juncture, to set out some of the legal principlesunderlying the application of Art 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Model Law. First,Art 34(2)(a)(iii) is not concerned with the situation where an arbitraltribunal did not have jurisdiction to deal with the dispute which itpurported to determine. Rather, it applies where the arbitral tribunalimproperly decided matters that had not been submitted to it or failed todecide matters that had been submitted to it. In other words,Art 34(2)(a)(iii) addresses the situation where the arbitral tribunal exceeded(or failed to exercise) the authority that the parties granted to it (seeGary B Born, International Commercial Arbitration(Wolters Kluwer, 2009)at vol 2, pp 26062607 and 27982799). This ground for setting aside anarbitral award covers only an arbitral tribunals substantive jurisdiction anddoes not extend to procedural matters (see Robert Merkin & Johanna

Hjalmarsson, Singapore Arbitration Legislation Annotated(Informa, 2009)(Singapore Arbitration Legislation) at p 117).

32 Second, it must be noted that a failure by an arbitral tribunal to dealwith every issue referred to it will notordinarily render its arbitral awardliable to be set aside. The crucial question in every case is whether there hasbeen real or actual prejudice to either (or both) of the parties to the dispute.In this regard, the following passage in Redfern and Hunter([27] supraatpara 10.40) correctly summarises the position:

The significance of the issues that were not dealt with has to be considered inrelation to the award as a whole . For example, it is not difficult to envisage asituation in which the issues that were overlooked were of such importancethat, if they had been dealt with, the whole balance of the award would havebeen altered and its effect would have been different. [emphasis added]

33 Third, it is trite that mere errors of law or even fact are not sufficientto warrant setting aside an arbitral award under Art 34(2)(a)(iii) of theModel Law (see Sui Southern Gas Co Ltd v Habibullah Coastal Power Co(Pte) Ltd [2010] 3 SLR 1 at [19][22]). In the House of Lords decision ofLesotho Highlands Development Authority v Impregilo SpA [2006] 1 AC221, which concerned an application to set aside an arbitral award on theground of the arbitral tribunals exceeding its powers (see s 68(2)(b) ofthe Arbitration Act 1996 (c 23) (UK) (the UK Arbitration Act)),Lord Steyn made clear (at [24][25]) the vital distinction between the



16/40


erroneous exercise by an arbitral tribunal of an available power vested in it(which would amount to no more than a mere error of law) and thepurported exercise by the arbitral tribunal of a power which it did notpossess. Only in the latter situation, his Lordship stated, would an arbitralaward be liable to be set aside under s 68(2)(b) of the UK Arbitration Act onthe ground that the arbitral tribunal had exceeded its powers. In a similarvein, Art 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Model Law applies where an arbitral tribunalexceeds its authority by deciding matters beyond its ambit of reference orfails to exercise the authority conferred on it by failing to decide the matterssubmitted to it, which in turn prejudices either or both of the parties to thedispute (see above at [31]).

34 Based on the above principles, the challenge under Art 34(2)(a)(iii) ofthe Model Law to the Final Award in the present case involves thedetermination of:

(a) whether the Majority Members had the power under the TOR in particular, under sub-cl 20.6 of the 1999 FIDIC Conditions ofContract, which forms part of the TOR (see [12] above) to issue theFinal Award without opening up, reviewing and revising theAdjudicators decision; and

(b) if the Majority Members did not have such power, whether theirconduct in acting in excess of their jurisdiction caused real or actual

prejudice to PGN.

Setting aside based on breach of the rules of natural justice: Section 24(b) ofthe IAA

35 Section 24(b) of the IAA provides that notwithstanding Art 34(1) ofthe Model Law, an arbitral award can be set aside if a breach of the rules ofnatural justice occurred in connection with the making of the award, bywhich the rights of any party have been prejudiced. In this regard, Art 18 ofthe Model Law provides that the parties to an arbitration shall be treatedwith equality and each party shall be given a full opportunity of presentinghis case.

36 As noted in Soh Beng Tee([25] supra) at [63], the appointed arbitratorwill usually be an expert in the field of law and/or trade that is the subject ofdispute, and the parties intend to rely on his expertise to obtain a sound andexpeditious decision. The courts, therefore, must not blindly and/ormechanically apply the rules of natural justice so as to require everyconclusion that the arbitrator intends to make to be put to or raised withthe parties (see also David Joseph, Jurisdiction and Arbitration Agreementsand their Enforcement(Sweet & Maxwell, 2nd Ed, 2010) at para 16.28). Asstated in Singapore Arbitration Legislation ([31] supra) at p 65, a merefailure by an arbitrator to act as efficiently as he might or a minordivergence from the procedural rules established by the parties is not of



17/40

[2011] 4 SLR



itself sufficient to justify a remedy for breach of the rules of natural justice.An arbitrator is perfectly entitled to adhere to procedural rules agreed to bythe parties or adopted by the arbitrator himself within his powers.

37 To set aside an arbitral award under s 24(b) of the IAA, the court hasto be satisfied, first, that the arbitral tribunal breached a rule of naturaljustice in making the arbitral award. Second, and more importantly, thecourt must then be satisfied that the breach of natural justice caused actualor real prejudice to the party challenging the award. In other words, thebreach of the rules of natural justice must have actually altered the finaloutcome of the arbitral proceedings in some meaningful way before curialintervention is warranted. Where the same result could or would ultimately

have ensued even if the arbitrator had acted properly, there would be nobasis for setting aside the arbitral award in question (see Soh Beng Teeat [29] and [82][91]).

38 As in the preceding section vis--vis challenging the Final Awardbased on Art 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Model Law (see [34] above), the pertinentquestions where challenging the Final Award based on s 24(b) of the IAA isconcerned are: (a) whether the Majority Members breached any rule ofnatural justice in making the Final Award without opening up, reviewingand revising the Adjudicators decision; and, (b) if they did commit such abreach, whether the breach caused actual or real prejudice to PGN.

39 Having set out the broad legal principles above, we can now turn toanalyse the issues which we have identified (at [24] above) as being therelevant issues in this appeal.

Issue 1: The matters which the Arbitral Tribunal was appointed to decide

40 We begin with Issue 1, viz, the issue of what matters the ArbitralTribunal was appointed to decide in the Arbitration.

41 As mentioned at [9] above, CRW filed its Request for Arbitrationpursuant to sub-cl 20.6 of the 1999 FIDIC Conditions of Contract.However, it expressly stated in its Request for Arbitration that the ambit ofthe Arbitration was limited to giving prompt effect to the [Adjudicators]

[d]ecision, and framed the issue to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal asfollows:

13. [CRW] seeks arbitration in relation to [PGN]s failure to give effect tothe [Adjudicators] [d]ecision dated 25 November 2008[,] whichdecision is binding on [CRW] and [PGN], whereby [PGN] has failed toperform payment amounting to US$17,298,834.57 (seventeen milliontwo hundred ninety eight thousand eight hundred thirty four United

States Dollars and fifty seven cents) to [CRW].

14. This request for arbitration shall be limited to giving prompt effect to the[Adjudicators] [d]ecision dated 25 November 2008 in which instanceshall be the fulfillment of [PGNs] obligation to perform payment of the



18/40


US$17,298,834.57 (seventeen million two hundred ninety eightthousand eight hundred thirty four United States Dollars and fifty sevencents) to [CRW].

15. As the request for arbitration is limited to giving prompt effect to the

[Adjudicators] decision dated 25 November 2008[,] hence we proposethat the [A]rbitration be performed pursuant to the Document Only

Arbitration Method.

[emphasis added]

42 PGN firmly rejected CRWs position in its Answer to Request forArbitration. PGN submitted, inter alia, that it had no obligation to pay the

US$17,298,834.57 awarded by the Adjudicator because it had validlysubmitted a NOD, which rendered the Adjudicators decision not yet finaland binding. PGN contended that, therefore, the Arbitral Tribunal oughtto open up, review and revise the Adjudicators decision, as well as hear therelevant witnesses and experts to obtain actual information and evidencepertinent to the parties dispute in accordance with sub-cl 20.6 of the 1999FIDIC Conditions of Contract. It emphatically stated that the ArbitralTribunal [could] not and [should] not deliberate the current disputemerely based on [the Adjudicators] [d]ecision.

43 Subsequent to the directions given by the Arbitral Tribunal on 4 June2009 (see [11] above), the parties signed the TOR on 17 June 2009 (see [12]

above). The TOR stated clearly that the Arbitration was commencedpursuant to sub-cl 20.6 of the 1999 FIDIC Conditions of Contract. Further,it is plain that under the TOR, the Arbitral Tribunal was, by the partiesconsent, conferred an unfettered discretion to reopen and review each andevery finding by the Adjudicator. In other words, the Arbitral Tribunal wasappointed to decide not only whether CRW was entitled to immediatepayment of the sum of US$17,298,834.57 (viz, the First Preliminary Issuedefined at [11] above), but also any additional issues of fact or law whichthe Arbitral Tribunal, in its own discretion, [might] deem necessary todecide for the purpose of rendering its arbitral award. With this crucialfactual backdrop in mind, we now turn to consider Issue 2, viz, thestructure of the dispute resolution procedure prescribed in the 1999 FIDIC

Conditions of Contract.

Issue 2: The dispute resolution procedure under the 1999 FIDICConditions of Contract

44 The dispute between the parties centred on the construction of thedispute resolution provisions in the 1999 FIDIC Conditions of Contract, inparticular, on sub-cll 20.420.7 thereof (viz, the 1999 FIDIC ArbitrationProvisions defined at [21] above). These sub-clauses outline the process ofreferring a dispute to a DAB and, subsequently (where applicable), toarbitration as follows:



19/40

[2011] 4 SLR



20.4 Obtaining [DAB]s Decision

If a dispute (of any kind whatsoever) arises between the Parties in connectionwith, or arising out of, the Contract or the execution of the Works, includingany dispute as to any certificate, determination, instruction, opinion orvaluation of the Engineer, either Party may refer the dispute in writing to theDAB for its decision, with copies to the other Party and the Engineer. Such

reference shall state that it is given under this Sub-Clause.

Within 84 days after receiving such reference, or within such other period asmay be proposed by the DAB and approved by both Parties, the DAB shall

give its decision, which shall be reasoned and shall state that it is given under

this Sub-Clause. The decision shall be binding on both Parties, who shallpromptly give effect to it unless and until it shall be revised in an amicable

settlement or an arbitral award as described below. Unless the Contract hasalready been abandoned, repudiated or terminated, the Contractor shallcontinue to proceed with the Works in accordance with the Contract.

If either Party is dissatisfied with the DABs decision, then either Party may,within 28 days after receiving the decision, give notice to the other Party of itsdissatisfaction. If the DAB fails to give its decision within the period of 84days (or as otherwise approved) after receiving such reference, then eitherParty may, within 28 days after this period has expired, give notice to the

other Party of its dissatisfaction.

In either event, this notice of dissatisfaction shall state that it is given under

this Sub-Clause, and shall set out the matter in dispute and the reason(s) fordissatisfaction. Except as stated in Sub-Clause 20.7 [Failure to Comply with[DAB]s Decision] and Sub-Clause 20.8 [Expiry of [DAB]s Appointment]neither Party shall be entitled to commence arbitration of a dispute unless anotice of dissatisfaction has been given in accordance with this Sub-Clause.

If the DAB has given its decision as to a matter in dispute to both Parties, andno notice of dissatisfaction has been given by either Party within 28 days afterit received the DABs decision, then the decision shall become final and

binding upon both Parties.

20.5 Amicable Settlement

Where notice of dissatisfaction has been given under Sub-Clause 20.4 above,both Parties shall attempt to settle the dispute amicably before the

commencement of arbitration. However, unless both Parties agree otherwise,arbitration may be commenced on or after the fifty-sixth day after the day onwhich notice of dissatisfaction was given, even if no attempt at amicablesettlement has been made.

20.6 Arbitration

Unless settled amicably, any dispute in respect of which the DABs decision(if any) has not become final and binding shall be finally settled by

international arbitration. Unless otherwise agreed by both Parties:

(a) the dispute shall be finally settled under the [ICC] Rules of Arbitration,



20/40


(b) the dispute shall be settled by three arbitrators appointed inaccordance with these Rules, and

(c) the arbitration shall be conducted in the language for communications

defined in Sub-Clause 1.4 [Law and Language].

The arbitrator(s) shall have full power to open up, review and revise anycertificate, determination, instruction, opinion or valuation of the Engineer,and any decision of the DAB, relevant to the dispute. Nothing shall disqualifythe Engineer from being called as a witness and giving evidence before thearbitrator(s) on any matter whatsoever relevant to the dispute.

Neither Party shall be limited in the proceedings before the arbitrator(s) to

the evidence or arguments previously put before the DAB to obtain its

decision, or to the reasons for dissatisfaction given in its notice ofdissatisfaction. Any decision of the DAB shall be admissible in evidence inthe arbitration.

20.7 Failure to Comply with [DAB]s Decision

In the event that:

(a) neither Party has given notice of dissatisfaction within the periodstated in Sub-Clause 20.4 [Obtaining [DAB]s Decision],

(b) the DABs related decision (if any) has become final and binding, and

(c) a Party fails to comply with this decision,

then the other Party may, without prejudice to any other rights it may have,refer the failure itself to arbitration under Sub-Clause 20.6 [Arbitration]. Sub-Clause 20.4 [Obtaining [DAB]s Decision] and Sub-Clause 20.5 [AmicableSettlement] shall not apply to this reference.

[emphasis in original in italics; emphasis added in bold italics]

45 It can be seen from the foregoing that the dispute resolutionprocedure under the 1999 FIDIC Conditions of Contract envisages adispute being referred to a DAB first, with arbitration being resorted to onlyif there is dissatisfaction with the DABs decision which the parties areunable to resolve amicably. Accordingly, in the analysis which follows, weshall consider dispute resolution by a DAB first, before turning to dispute

resolution by arbitration.Dispute resolution by a DAB

The character of a DAB

46 In Cyril Chern, Chern on Dispute Boards: Practice and Procedure(Blackwell Publishing, 2008) (Chern), the general nature of a DAB issuccinctly summarised (at p 2) thus:

A dispute board is a job-site dispute adjudication process, typically

comprising three independent and impartial persons selected by thecontracting parties. The significant difference between dispute boards and



21/40

[2011] 4 SLR



most other alternative dispute review techniques is that the dispute boardis appointed at the commencement of a project beforeany disputes arise, andby undertaking regular visits to the site[,] it is actively involved throughoutthe project (and possibly any agreed period thereafter). [emphasis in original]

47 Chern elaborates (at p 192) on the inquisitorial nature of a hearingconducted by a DAB:

Dispute boards are slightly different [from courts] in that the normal rules ofevidence do not generally apply. Indeed, dispute boards operate from a

different principle in that dispute boards are not based upon any principleof fairness in the presentation of evidence. While it is true that the vastmajority of dispute board chairs follow the niceties of listening patiently to

the parties and witnesses and allowing most documents to be presented, i.e.giving the parties a fair shake in presenting their evidence, the fact remainsthat dispute boards are not courts they are inquisitorial by contractualagreement. This allows the dispute board to actually go out and obtain its ownevidence, if necessary, to make its decisions or determinations. In this regardthe dispute board chair usually determines in what order the witnesses should

proceed after being presented with a proposed list of witnesses and evidence tobe adduced. Evidence is handled, in most cases, in a similar fashion to anarbitration proceeding or a court proceeding, however, in that the party

proposing that some document be shown to the dispute board should firstshare it with the other party, and if possible, obtain [the latters] consent tothat document being used as a piece of evidence. Once this document (or

piece of evidence) has been shown to the other party, either during or beforethe hearing commences, the party offering it should give it a number for ease

of reference and present it to the dispute board for inclusion in the groupof exhibits [for] the hearing. [emphasis added]

48 In short, the DAB is not bound by any fixed rules of procedure, and isable to adopt the most appropriate method in making its determination(such as conducting a hearing or undertaking an inquisitorial process),subject to the general requirements of: (a) acting fairly and reasonably; and(b) giving each party a reasonable opportunity to advance its case and torespond to the other partys case. Indeed, the DAB may even do without anoral hearing if it believes that such a hearing is unnecessary, unless one orboth of the parties request for it (see Susanne Kratzsch, ICC Dispute

Resolution Rules: ICC dispute boards and ICC Pre-Arbitral Referees(2010) 26 Constr LJ 87 at 94).

The status of a DAB decision

49 In the present case, the status or effect of a DAB decision under the1999 FIDIC Conditions of Contract formed the crux of the dispute in theArbitration. Sub-clause 20.4 of the 1999 FIDIC Conditions of Contractprovides that a decision of a DAB shall be binding on the parties, whoshall promptly give effect to it unless and until it shall be revised in anamicable settlement or an arbitral award.



22/40


50 Chernremarks (at p 5) that a DAB decision has interim binding effect,

as opposed to a decision of a dispute reviewboard, which only serves as a

non-binding recommendation. According to Chern(likewise at p 5):

[T]he interim-binding decision [of a DAB] has meaning in that the [DAB]s

decision is contractually to be implemented immediately even if one or other

party is unhappy. Thus the losing party will be in breach of contract if it does

not pay/grant time in accordance with the [DAB] decision. [emphasis added]

While it is generally accepted that a DAB decision has interim binding

effect, the mode of enforcing such a binding decision has been the subject of

much debate and, unsurprisingly, no little controversy. In Ugo Draetta,

Dispute Resolution in International Construction-Linked Contracts(2011) 1 IBLJ 69, the author assesses the effect of a DAB decision as follows

(at 80):

The members of a Dispute Board [which, in the context of this quote, may be

either a DAB or a dispute review board] are not arbitrators. Neither their

recommendations, even when they eventually become contractually binding,

nor their decisions have the nature of arbitral awards as they cannot be

enforced as such according to the 1958 New York Convention [ie, the

Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards

adopted in New York on 10 June 1958 by the United Nations Conference on

International Commercial Arbitration at its twenty-fourth meeting]. A clause

contemplating a dispute board cannot thus be conceived as the only disputeresolution clause in a construction contract, without providing for

recourse to arbitration (or to ordinary jurisdiction). [emphasis added]

51 A binding decision is one that has an obligatory effect. The terms

binding and final are not synonymous. A binding decision is not

invariably a final one. A final decision is, in essence, one that is unalterable

and not open to further review. Where a DAB decision is concerned, the

decision remains binding and has contractual force even if a NOD is filed.

But, the decision is not conferred the status of a final decision. It does not

have the status of finality that an arbitral award has under the Convention

on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards adopted

in New York on 10 June 1958 by the United Nations Conference onInternational Commercial Arbitration at its twenty-fourth meeting (the

New York Convention). Vis--visarbitral awards to which the New York

Convention applies, our courts have little choice but to recognise and

enforce such awards unless one or more of the grounds prescribed in Art V

of the New York Convention for refusing to recognise and enforce an

arbitral award exist (see ss 29 and 31 of the IAA). In contrast, a DAB

decision is not a final award or decision in the conventional sense as the

entire underlying dispute which gave rise to the decision can be reheard if

and when it is referred to arbitration pursuant to the scheme set out in the

1999 FIDIC Conditions of Contract.



23/40


24/40


determination, instruction, opinion and valuation of the [contractadministrator], and any decision of the [DAB ] relevant to the dispute. Ittherefore follows that the arbitral tribunal has the power to revise, not only thedecision of the DAB which is the subject of the notice of dissatisfaction, butother decisions of [the] DAB provided th[ey] are relevant to the dispute.

Although not stated expressly, it is suggested that the arbitral tribunal may notrevise any decision of the DAB which has become final and binding upon bothParties.

9.216 It is frequently the case that the respondent party in an arbitration may

wish to include counterclaims. Counterclaims are permitted by the ICC Rules

[of Arbitration]. It is, however, suggested that the dispute to which the

counterclaim relates must first have been referred to the DAB and that the

counterclaim relates either to the enforcement of the decision of the DAB on

that dispute under Sub-Clause 20.7 or notice of dissatisfaction has been

given in relation to that decision, the period for amicable settlement under

Sub-Clause 20.5 has elapsed, and the counterclaim is advanced in the

arbitration by way of a rehearing of that decision of the DAB under Sub-

Clause 20.6

[emphasis added]

55 Where a DAB decision is not challenged within the prescribed timeperiod of 28 days provided for in sub-cl 20.4 of the 1999 FIDIC Conditionsof Contract, it becomesfinal and bindingon the parties. In such a situation,pursuant to sub-cl 20.7 of the 1999 FIDIC Conditions of Contract, non-compliance with the DAB decision can be referred to arbitration for thesole purpose of enforcement. As stated in Jeremy Glover & Simon Hughes,Understanding the New FIDIC Red Book: A Clause-by-Clause Commentary(Sweet & Maxwell, 2006) (Understanding the New FIDIC Red Book) atpara 20-053:

Where a decision of the DAB has not been complied with and no notice of

dissatisfaction [has been] served, the other party is entitled to arbitrate and

need not attempt an amicable settlement. This provision gives force to the

DAB. It is envisaged that arbitration proceedings commenced for the

enforcement of a DAB decision will be relatively quick. The arbitrator will be

asked, in effect, to give summary judgment to enforce that DAB decision.

In situations, however, where a notice of dissatisfaction has been served by a

party and that party also refuses to comply with the DABs decision (contrary

to the clear provisions of cl. 20.4) then there appears to be a gap in cl. 20.7, as

first identified by Professor Nael Bunni [see Prof Bunnis article at, inter alia,272].

Sub-clause 20.7 only deals with the situation where both parties are satisfied

with the DAB decision. If not (i.e. if a Notice of Dissatisfaction has been served)then there is no immediate recourse for the aggrieved party to ensure the DAB

decision can be enforced.

[emphasis added]



25/40

[2011] 4 SLR



56 Prof Bunnis article penetratingly analyses the situation where a DABdecision has not become final and binding, and the party against whom thedecision was made fails to comply with it (this is the gap which is thesubject matter of that article). Prof Bunnis article points out (at p 276) thatin such a case, there is no remedy offered by cl 20 of the 1999 FIDICConditions of Contract, other than that of treating the non-compliant partyas being in breach of contract and, accordingly, liable for damages. Thedrawback of this method of recourse is that the DAB decision becomes oflittle immediate value. Sub-clause 20.7 of the 1999 FIDIC Conditions ofContract is of no assistance to the aggrieved party in this scenario (ie, wherethere is non-compliance with a binding but non-final DAB decision) as it

applies only to DAB decisions which have become final and binding.

57 Both Prof Bunni and the learned authors of Understanding the NewFIDIC Red Bookdid not consider the decision in ICC International Courtof Arbitration Case No 10619 (ICC Case No 10619), which, althoughrendered in 2001, was published only in 2008. In ICC Case No 10619, theclaimant contractor entered into two separate contracts with therespondent employer for the construction of roads. The contractsincorporated the provisions set out in FIDICs Conditions of Contract forWorks of Civil Engineering Construction (4th Ed, 1987) (the 1987 FIDICRed Book). The engineer made certain decisions ordering payment by theemployer to the contractor, but the employer did not comply with those

decisions. Subsequently, the contractor filed a Request for Arbitration withthe ICC International Court of Arbitration pursuant to cl 67 of the 1987FIDIC Red Book. The contractor claimed damages based on severalcomplaints, including the employers failure to grant funding for the projectand possession of the site, as well as the employers failure to give effect to[the] Engineers decision[s] pursuant to sub-clause 67.1 of the [1987 FIDICRed Book] (see para 4(e) of the interim award made in ICC CaseNo 10619). It should be noted that prior to filing its Request for Arbitration,the contractor had also issued a NOD in respect of the engineers decisions(ie, the contractor, although dissatisfied with the engineers decisions, wasat the same time seeking to enforce those decisions).

58 The relevant portion of sub-cl 67.1 of the 1987 FIDIC Red Bookprovides that:

[T]he Contractor and the Employer shall give effect forthwith to everysuch decision of the Engineer unless and until the same shall be revised in

an amicable settlement or an arbitral award.

59 After the contractors Request for Arbitration and the employersAnswer to Request for Arbitration were filed, the contractor declared itsintention to request the arbitral tribunal to render an interim award to thefollowing effect (see para 6 of the interim award made in ICC CaseNo 10619):



26/40


(i) declaring that the [employer] must give effect to the EngineersDecision[s] pursuant to sub-clause 67.1 [of the 1987 FIDIC Red Book]

regardless of the pending arbitration, and (ii) ordering the [employer] toimmediately pay the amounts determined by the Engineer as an advancepayment of any further payment which would result [sic] due by the[employer] pursuant to the final award.

60 The arbitral tribunal granted an interim awardin respect of two of theengineers decisions on the ground that this was simply a matter of contractlaw (it rejected, however, the contractors request for an interim award inrespect of two other decisions of the engineer on the ground that thosedecisions had been rendered out of time). The arbitral tribunal explained its

decision as follows in the interim award:

22. The question now arises as to whether and on what legal basis thisTribunal may adjudicate the present dispute by an interim award.

This point can be easily exhausted. If the Engineers decision[s] have animmediate binding effect on the parties so that the mere fact that any partydoes not comply with them forthwith is deemed a breach of contract,

notwithstanding the possibility that at the end they may be revised or setaside in arbitration or by a further agreement to the contrary, there is noreason why in the face of such a breach the Arbitral Tribunal should refrain

from an immediate judgment giving the Engineers decisions their full forceand effect. This simply is the law of the contract.

27. Finally, whereas according to [sub-cl] 67.1 of the [1987] FIDIC [RedBook], the Engineers decisions shall have an immediate binding effect, theArbitral Tribunal holds that provisionalenforcement of this award must beordered.

The Award

The rights of the parties as to the merits of their [respective] case[s], includingbut not limited to the final and binding effect of the Engineers decisions[,] arereserved until the final Award of this Tribunal.

[emphasis added]

61 The arbitral tribunal in ICC Case No 10619 thus astutely made it clearthat enforcing the engineers decisions by way of an interim award wouldnot prejudice the employers right to argue later in the samearbitration thatthose decisions were wrong and that the corresponding amounts which theengineer had ordered to be paid to the contractor should be repaid to theemployer. The arbitral tribunal subsequently released a final award whichexamined fully the merits of the parties dispute.

62 In Christopher R Seppl, Enforcement by an Arbitral Award of aBinding but not Final Engineers or DABs decision under the FIDIC



27/40

[2011] 4 SLR



Conditions [2009] ICLR 414 (Seppls article), the author suggests(at 424) that the arbitral tribunal in ICC Case No 10619:

perfectly understood the way clause 67 of the [1987 FIDIC Red Book] is to

function and its decision to order payment of the engineers decisions by wayof an interim award, notwithstanding the contractors earlier notice ofdissatisfaction, accords fully with the intention of clause 67.

The author argues (at p 426) that the same result should be reached in thecase of a DAB decision under cl 20 of the 1999 FIDIC Conditions ofContract because the relevant language of that clause is essentially the sameas that of cl 67 of the 1987 FIDIC Red Book.

63 Accordingly, Seppls article suggests (correctly, in our view) thateven if either party has issued a NOD with respect to a DAB decisionpursuant to sub-cl 20.4 of the 1999 FIDIC Conditions of Contract, eachparty is bound to give effect to that decision (which will be binding but non-final by virtue of the NOD(s) issued), and if that decision calls for paymentto be made by one party to the other, then the decision should beenforceable directly by an interim or partial award pursuant to the ICCRules of Arbitration. Further, as stated at para 9.220 of FIDIC Contracts:Law and Practice, while a party has no express right to refer to arbitrationthe failure of the other party to comply with a DAB decision where a NODhas been given by either party (ie, where the DAB decision in question hasnot become final and binding), a party may include (in an arbitration

commenced under sub-cl 20.6 of the 1999 FIDIC Conditions of Contract) aclaim for an interim award to enforce the DAB decision pending the finalresolution of the dispute by the arbitral tribunal.

64 Subsequent to the publication of the decision in ICC Case No 10619,the Dispute Board Federation, an organisation founded to promote the useof dispute boards as a means of dispute avoidance on large infrastructureprojects in developing countries (see (accessed on 8 July 2011)), published on its website a special editionof its newsletter dated September 2010 (the September 2010 DBFnewsletter) highlighting another recent decision of the ICC InternationalCourt of Arbitration (see (assessed on 8 July 2011)). In that decision, the arbitraltribunal was concerned with the enforcement of two binding but non-finalDAB decisions rendered under a slightly amended version of the 1999FIDIC Conditions of Contract. The DAB decisions were effectivelyobtained ex parte by the contractor in its favour as the employer hadcontinually refused to participate in any stage of the DAB process. Theemployer then served a notice of dissatisfaction against the DAB decisionsand proceeded to refer its own disputes to arbitration. The contractorcounterclaimed for damages by relying on the DAB decisions and appliedfor bifurcation of the arbitral proceedings, seeking a partial award that,inter alia, the DAB decisions were binding and enforceable against the



28/40


employer. (The contractor sought a partial award instead of an interimaward because the former was considered to be more straightforward thanthe latter where enforcement in the courts of the employers jurisdictionwas concerned.)

65 The arbitral tribunal agreed with the contractors primary argumentthat the DAB decisions were enforceable under apartialaward. In reachingthat conclusion, the arbitral tribunal made it very clear that the subjectmatter of the DAB decisions could be opened up, reviewed and revised bythe arbitral tribunal subsequently in the same arbitration in accordancewith the express power to do so as granted by sub-cl 20.6 of the 1999 FIDICConditions of Contract.

66 In the light of the foregoing, it seems quite plain to us that a referenceto arbitration under sub-cl 20.6 of the 1999 FIDIC Conditions of Contractin respect of a binding but non-final DAB decision is clearly in the form of arehearing so that the entirety of the parties dispute(s) can finally beresolved afresh. While there is a theoretical gap in the immediateenforceability of such a DAB decision under the 1999 FIDIC Conditions ofContract, both ICC Case No 10619 and the case mentioned in theSeptember 2010 DBF newsletter suggest that the practical response is forthe successful party in the DAB proceedings to secure an interim or partialaward from the arbitral tribunal in respect of the DAB decision pending theconsideration of the merits of the parties dispute(s) in the same arbitration.

67 In addition, we note an important point which was not considered inthe court below. Where a NOD has been validly filed against a DABdecision by one or both of the parties, and either or both of the parties failto comply with that decision (which, by virtue of the NOD(s) filed, will bebinding but non-final), sub-cl 20.6 of the 1999 FIDIC Conditions ofContract requires the parties to finally settle their differences in the samearbitration, both in respect of the non-compliance with the DAB decisionand in respect of the merits of that decision. In other words, sub-cl 20.6contemplates a single arbitration where all the existing differences betweenthe parties arising from the DAB decision concerned will be resolved. Therespondent to the proceedings may raise the issues which it wishes thearbitral tribunal to consider either in its defence and or in the form of acounterclaim. There is no particular doctrine or rule that the respondentcan only dispute a binding but non-final DAB decision by way of acounterclaim. Even if both parties were to file NODs in respect of the DABdecision, all the disputes have to be resolved in one consolidatedarbitration.

68 This observation is consistent with the plain phraseology of sub-cl 20.6, which requires the parties dispute in respect of any binding DABdecision which has yet to become final to be finally settled by internationalarbitration. Sub-clause 20.6 clearly does not provide for separateproceedings to be brought by the parties before different arbitral panels



29/40

[2011] 4 SLR



even if each party is dissatisfied with the same DAB decision for differentreasons.

Issue 3: Whether the Final Award was issued in accordance with sub-clause 20.6 of the 1999 FIDIC Conditions of Contract

69 We move on now to Issue 3, viz, whether the Final Award was issuedin accordance with sub-cl 20.6 of the 1999 FIDIC Conditions of Contract.This turns on whether the Majority Members had the power to issue theFinal Award without opening up, reviewing and revising the Adjudicatorsdecision (see [34] and [52] above).

The parties arguments before the Arbitral Tribunal70 In its memorial dated 13 July 2009, CRW argued that PGN was notentitled to request the Arbitral Tribunal to open up, review and revise theAdjudicators decision. It submitted that the scope of the Arbitration waslimited to giving prompt effect to the Adjudicators decision as reflected inits Request for Arbitration (see above at [9]). As PGN had not submitted acounterclaim, its request to open up, review and revise the Adjudicatorsdecision should be rejected. We should also point out that CRW initiallychallenged the validity of PGNs NOD on the basis that it had not beenproperly submitted. However, at the commencement of the ArbitralHearing, CRW retracted that objection.

71 In contrast to the position taken by CRW, PGN, in its memorial dated10 July 2009, set out in a detailed manner the Arbitral Tribunals power to:(a) open up, review and revise the Adjudicators decision; (b) hear therelevant witnesses and experts in order to obtain actual information andmaterial evidence; and (c) independently determine the actual paymentthat either party had to make to the other. PGN elaborated at length on thealleged errors in the Adjudicators decision (eg, it argued that the decisionwas not made in accordance with the governing law of the PipelineContract, which was Indonesian law, as the Adjudicator had referredextensively to common law cases and had not referred to Indonesian law atall). In addition, PGN alleged that the Adjudicator had failed to observefactual conditions, and had also failed to afford PGN a reasonable

opportunity to present its case as he had accepted the evidence of arepresentative of CRW without giving PGN the chance to respond to thatevidence. Importantly, PGN also referred to various underlying documentsto submit that the Adjudicator had strangely expanded CRWs claim fromUS$13,955,634 to US$17,298,834.57 as a result of several erroneousinstances of double-counting. Based on the above factors, PGN submittedthat the Arbitral Tribunal ought to grant its request to open up, review andrevise the Adjudicators decision.



30/40


72 The parties resolutely maintained their respective positions in theirreply memorials and also during the Arbitral Hearing on 16 September2009 (save for a crucial concession made by CRW (see below at [87])).

The Final Award

73 After the Arbitral Hearing on 16 September 2009, the MajorityMembers issued the Final Award on 24 November 2009. It is noteworthythat the Majority Members acknowledged (at para 25 of the Final Award)that the dispute had been referred to arbitration under sub-cl 20.6 of the1999 FIDIC Conditions of Contract.

74 With regard to the First Preliminary Issue, the Majority Membersanalysed sub-cll 20.420.6 of the 1999 FIDIC Conditions of Contract andstated thus in the Final Award:

37. Having considered clause 20 as a whole, the Tribunal [ie, the MajorityMembers] is unable to find any ambiguity warranting the Tribunal other

than to give the words their plain and ordinary meaning.

38. Binding means obligatory. To be bound means to be compelled or

obliged by a covenant or promise or [to] be subject to a legal obligation to doan act. Final means conclusive or unalterable.

39. It is of significance that the sentence in the fourth paragraph of [sub-clause] 20.4 refers to binding and does not mention the word final. Thereason for this is because [sub-]clause 20.4 foresees the possibility of an

arbitral award which may vary the DAB decision. On this basis, it [ie, theDAB decision] is not final. This is in sharp contradistinction to the lastparagraph of [sub-clause] 20.4 which juxtaposes both final and []bindingbut that is in the situation where no notice of dissatisfaction has been servedand thus the binding decision becomes also a final one in that it is thenunalterable.

40. Having set out what is meant by binding and final, the Tribunal nowmust turn to consider whether the words unless and until it shall be revised inan arbitral award affect or deviate from the binding nature of a DABdecision.

41. The fourth sentence of the fourth paragraph of [sub-]clause 20.4 makes

it abundantly clear that the binding nature of a DAB decision remains and

has to be given prompt effect, and the decision can only be varied by asubsequent amicable settlement or arbitral award.

42. [PGN]s submissions have the effect of rendering a DAB decision of nobinding effect whatsoever until an arbitral award. Such an interpretation isthe complete opposite of what the fourth sentence of the fourth paragraph of[sub-]clause 20.4 says.


75 It can be seen from the above extract that the Majority Members wereclearly aware of the distinction between a final and binding DAB decisionand a binding but non-final DAB decision. The Majority Members



31/40

[2011] 4 SLR



concluded (at para 45 of the Final Award) that PGN had an obligation tomake immediate payment of the sum of US$17,298,834.57 to CRW.

76 As for the Second Preliminary Issue (ie, whether PGN was entitled torequest the Arbitral Tribunal to open up, review and revise theAdjudicators decision), the Majority Members placed emphasis (atparas 4851 of the Final Award) on the fact that PGN had not served anycounterclaim. They considered PGNs request for a review of theAdjudicators decision to be merely a defence to CRWs claim forimmediate payment, which defence was untenable. The Majority Membersreasoned as follows in the Final Award:

47. In paragraph 35 of its Answer [to Request for Arbitration], [PGN] alsorequests for an award

v. To open up review and revise the [Adjudicators] decision, as wellas to hear relevant witnesses and experts to obtain actual informationand evidence relevant to the dispute.

48. [PGN] has not served any counterclaim.

49. In his email of 8th May 2009 counsel for [PGN] stated:

we would like to clarify that we are not submitting anycounterclaim(s) in our Answer dated 24 April 2009. Please note that ourresponse to the relief sought as provided in paragraph 35 pages 10 and 11of our Answer does not contain any counterclaim(s) filed against

[CRW]. In addition, our response to the relief sought cannot be deemed[as] containing counterclaim(s) since we did not elaborate anycounterclaim(s) in accordance with the provision of article 5

paragraph 5 of [the] ICC Rules [of Arbitration,] which provides that anycounterclaim(s) made by [PGN] shall provide (a) a description of thenature and circumstances of the dispute giving rise to thecounterclaim(s); and (b) a statement of the relief sought, including, tothe extent possible, an indication of any amount(s) counterclaimed.(emphasis provided).

50. The Arbitral Tribunal [ie, the Majority Members] concurs with[PGN]s counsel.

51. It follows that [PGNs] Answer and [PGN]s request for an award to

open up, review and revise the [Adjudicators] decision is but a defence to theclaim for immediate payment of US$17,298,834.57. For all the reasons setout above, this defence must also fail and the Arbitral Tribunal FINDS

accordingly.

This does not in any way affect [PGN]s right to commence an arbitration toseek to revise the [Adjudicators] decision. The Arbitral Tribunal notes that

[CRW has] expressly agreed that [PGN] may do so.


Documents

DAB Decisions CRW PT 11