Read the full judgment text of HCCT000028B/2002 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 27 March 2003 before Hon Burrell J in Chambers.
International arbitration enforcement — Arbitration seat and lex arbitri — Whether Indonesian court annulment bars enforcement under section 44(2)(f) — Court affirmed seat at Geneva, thus Swiss law applies as lex arbitri, rendering Indonesian annulment irrelevant for enforcement. Arbitration agreements in two separate contracts (JOC and ESC) consolidated properly given contractual integration. Arbitrators appointed validly under UNCITRAL rules where contracts silent or inapplicable. Procedural fairness maintained despite refusal of adjournment and discovery, as Pertamina could present case fully. Misapplication of substantive law not jurisdictional defect under section 44(2)(d). Issues considered potentially estopped due to prior US ruling but court ruled on merits. Enforcement not contrary to public policy; penalty did not arise from compliance with Indonesian law and nondisclosure of political risk insurance was immaterial. Application to set aside enforcement refused; costs awarded to KBC.
Legal issues: Whether the award has been set aside by a competent authority under the law of the place of arbitration (section 44(2)(f)) · Whether the arbitrations under JOC and ESC could be consolidated in a single arbitration (section 44(2)(d), (e)) · Validity of appointment of arbitrators in the arbitration · Whether Pertamina was denied a fair hearing contrary to section 44(2)(c) due to refusal of adjournment and discovery · Whether the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by failing to apply Indonesian law properly (section 44(2)(d)) · Whether grounds raised in enforcement proceedings are barred by res judicata (issue estoppel) · Whether enforcement of the award would be contrary to public policy of Hong Kong (section 44(3))
Outcome: Application to set aside enforcement refused; order to enforce arbitration award granted.