PNG Sustainable Development Program Ltd. v. Independent State of Papua New Guinea (ICSID Case No. ARB/13/33), Decision on the Claimant's Request for Provisional Measures (January 21, 2015)
I. INTRODUCTION
1. This Decision sets out the Tribunal’s reasons and the Tribunal’s decision on the Claimant’s Request for Provisional Measures dated 14 July 2014 (“Claimant’s Request for Provisional Measures”).
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, Mr Matthew Brown and Ms Yvette Anthony of Clifford Chance Pte. Ltd., Mr Audley Sheppard of Clifford Chance LLP, and Dr Romesh Weeramantry and Dr Sam Luttrell of Clifford Chance.1
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.
I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................2
II. THE PARTIES .....................................................................................................................2
A. The Claimant ............................................................................................................... 2
B. The Respondent ........................................................................................................... 2
III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY ................................................................................................2
IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................5
V. PARTIES’ SUBMISSIONS ................................................................................................11
A. The Claimant’s Request for Provisional Measures ................................................... 11
B. The Respondent’s Observations on the Claimant’s Request for Provisional Measures .................................................................................................................... 16
C. The Claimant’s Reply on Provisional Measures ....................................................... 24
D. Parties’ Correspondence Relating to Provisional Measures Post-Dating the Claimant’s Reply ....................................................................................................... 30
VI. THE TRIBUNAL’S REASONS ........................................................................................39
A. The Tribunal’s Power to Grant Provisional Measures and Applicable Standard ...... 39
1. Tribunal’s Power to Recommend Provisional Measures .......................................... 40
2. Standard for Granting Provisional Measures ............................................................ 42
B. The Claimant’s Requested Provisional Measures ..................................................... 48
1. Claimant’s Request No. 1 .......................................................................................... 48
2. Claimant’s Request No. 2 .......................................................................................... 52
3. Claimant’s Request No. 3 .......................................................................................... 56
C. Relevance of the Singapore Court Proceedings ........................................................ 61
VII. THE TRIBUNAL’S DECISION .......................................................................................62