|Help

PNG Sustainable Development Program Ltd. v. Independent State of Papua New Guinea (ICSID Case No. ARB/13/33), Decision on the Respondent's Preliminary Objections under Rule 41(5) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules (October 28, 2014)

Published: 
October, 2014
Jurisdictions: 
Papua New Guinea
Practice Areas: 
ICSID,
Preliminary Questions/ Referee,
Practice & Procedure
Tags: 
Preliminary Objections
Free Download

PDF0 bytes

$0.00
Description: 

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This Decision sets out the Tribunal’s reasons and the Tribunal’s decision on the Respondent’s “Preliminary Objections Under Rule 41(5) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules” dated 16 July 2014 (the “Application”).

II. THE PARTIES

A. The Claimant

2. PNG Sustainable Development Program Ltd., the Claimant (also referred to as “PNGSDP”), is a company limited by guarantee and incorporated under the laws of Singapore. The Claimant is represented in this arbitration by Mr. Nish Shetty, Mr. Paul Sandosham, Ms. Joan Lim, and Mr. Matthew Brown of Clifford Chance Pte. Ltd., Mr. Audley Sheppard of Clifford Chance LLP, and Mr. Romesh Weeramantry and Mr. Sam Luttrell of Clifford Chance.

B. The Respondent

3. The Independent State of Papua New Guinea, the Respondent (also referred to as “PNG”), is represented in this arbitration by Mr. Alvin Yeo SC, Ms. Joy Tan, Ms. Swee Yen Koh, Ms. Wendy Lin, Mr. Jared Chen, Mr. Yin Juon Qiang, Ms. Monica WY Chong, and Mr. Ahmad Firdaus bin Daud of WongPartnership LLP.

Table of Contents: 

I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................1

II. THE PARTIES ......................................................................................................................1

A. The Claimant ............................................................................................................1

B. The Respondent .......................................................................................................1

III. THE ARBITRAL PROCEDURE AND APPLICATION ..................................................1

IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ...............................................................................................4

V. SUMMARY OF THE PARTIES’ SUBMISSIONS ON THE APPLICATION ................8

A. The Respondent’s Application .................................................................................8

1. Jurisdiction ...................................................................................................9

2. Claims based on alleged MFN clause ........................................................14

B. The Claimant’s Observations on the Respondent’s Application ...........................16

1. “Private Foreign Investment” ....................................................................17

2. Consent ......................................................................................................19

3. MFN clause ................................................................................................22

C. The Respondent’s Reply to the Claimant’s Observations .....................................23

1. Consent ......................................................................................................23

2. “Private Foreign Investment” ....................................................................25

3. MFN clause ................................................................................................26

VI. THE TRIBUNAL’S REASONS .........................................................................................26

A. Rule 41(5): Scope and Standard ............................................................................27

B. The Respondent’s Objections ................................................................................28

VII. THE TRIBUNAL’S DECISION ........................................................................................31