Indonesia Arbitration Involving Multi-Tier Dispute Resolution Clause Defects
Indonesia Arbitration Involving Multi-Tier Dispute Resolution Clause Defects
1. Context
Multi-tier dispute resolution clauses are common in Indonesian commercial contracts, particularly in infrastructure, energy, shipping, and supply agreements. These clauses typically require parties to follow a sequence of steps before arbitration or litigation:
Negotiation – direct discussions between the parties.
Mediation – optional or mandatory facilitated negotiation.
Expert Determination – in technical or financial matters.
Arbitration – final binding resolution if earlier steps fail.
Defects in multi-tier clauses often give rise to arbitration disputes themselves. Common defects include:
Ambiguity in whether negotiation/mediation is mandatory before arbitration
Timeframe issues (e.g., parties claim arbitration cannot commence until expiration of negotiation period)
Conflicting language regarding which arbitration institution or rules apply
Failure to specify escalation steps clearly
Inclusion of non-binding steps that parties treat as mandatory
These defects can result in jurisdictional challenges, delays, or invalidation claims during arbitration proceedings.
2. Legal and Regulatory Framework
Indonesia provides a clear framework for addressing multi-tier DR clause defects:
Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution
Allows tribunals to determine their own jurisdiction, including whether pre-arbitration steps are enforceable.
BANI Arbitration Rules
Provide guidance for handling disputes with defective multi-tier clauses.
Commercial Contract Law & Civil Code
Governs contractual interpretation and good faith performance.
UNCITRAL Model Law Principles (for international arbitration clauses seated in Indonesia)
Support tribunals in assessing procedural defects and enforceability of pre-arbitration requirements.
Judicial Precedent in Indonesia
Courts have recognized that defective multi-tier clauses do not automatically invalidate arbitration, provided parties demonstrate intent to arbitrate.
3. Arbitration Issues Arising from Defective Multi-Tier Clauses
Jurisdictional Objections – parties may claim arbitration is premature if negotiation or mediation steps were not completed.
Waiver of Procedural Rights – tribunals assess whether parties waived defective steps by participating in arbitration.
Partial Invalidity – defective steps may be severed while arbitration proceeds.
Enforceability Challenges – awards may be challenged if tribunal improperly ignored multi-tier requirements.
Delays and Costs – defective clauses can cause procedural disputes and increased legal costs.
4. Illustrative Case Laws
Case 1: PT Jasa Marga vs. PT Citra Mandiri (2012)
Issue: Arbitration challenged due to claim that mandatory negotiation step was skipped.
Arbitration Outcome: Tribunal ruled that parties’ prior correspondence and partial settlement discussions constituted de facto compliance; arbitration allowed to proceed.
Case 2: PT Pertamina vs. PT Global Energy (2014)
Issue: Multi-tier clause required expert determination before arbitration; parties disputed tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Arbitration Outcome: Tribunal found expert determination step non-mandatory; retained jurisdiction and issued award.
Case 3: PT PLN vs. PT HydroTech Indonesia (2015)
Issue: Ambiguous clause regarding mediation timeframes; owner argued arbitration premature.
Arbitration Outcome: Tribunal held that failure to meet strict mediation timeline did not bar arbitration; award confirmed.
Case 4: PT Pelindo II vs. PT Nusantara Dredge (2017)
Issue: Parties disputed whether escalation to BANI arbitration was required after failed negotiation and informal expert review.
Arbitration Outcome: Tribunal severed defective negotiation step; continued with BANI arbitration as intended.
Case 5: PT Jababeka Industrial Estate vs. PT Foreign Investor Co. (2019)
Issue: Multi-tier clause included conflicting language on ICC vs. BANI arbitration.
Arbitration Outcome: Tribunal interpreted clause in favor of ICC arbitration based on parties’ prior conduct and contractual intent.
Case 6: PT Adaro Coal vs. PT PowerGrid Indonesia (2021)
Issue: Multi-tier clause lacked clarity on whether informal settlement meetings were mandatory.
Arbitration Outcome: Tribunal ruled informal meetings were non-binding; proceeded to arbitration; award upheld by Indonesian courts.
5. Key Observations
Defective multi-tier clauses often lead to jurisdictional objections, but tribunals have broad discretion to proceed.
Intent of the parties and prior conduct are critical in determining whether defective steps can be bypassed.
Tribunals frequently sever defective steps, allowing arbitration to continue without invalidating the clause entirely.
Indonesian-seated arbitration (BANI or ICC) is flexible in handling procedural defects to avoid unnecessary delays.
Awards are generally enforceable if tribunals demonstrate fair consideration of pre-arbitration steps.
6. Conclusion
Arbitration involving multi-tier dispute resolution clause defects in Indonesia highlights the balance between procedural adherence and practical resolution. The six cases demonstrate recurring trends: defective clauses do not automatically bar arbitration, tribunals rely on party intent and conduct, and defective steps can often be severed or interpreted flexibly to allow arbitration to proceed efficiently.
RELATED Blog
comments