Rule
Indonesia was bound on developing new investor treaty and they wanted to make sure that all the companies who had invested in Indonesia had a proper biodegradable method of dealing with the mines. So Churchill and Planet faced a problem in regard to their investments in Indonesia so they filed a request of arbitration against Indonesia (Crockett, 2017). On 1st March 2013, a join proceeding took place among Churchill, Planet, and Indonesia. But the court had a disagreement as to whether to provide one joint decision for both Planet and Churchill or to provide two separate decisions for each of the claimants. The decision was up for inspection by the Singapore court in August 2014 where a document inspection was done. Both the parties were allowed to present their case not only based on the laws but also based on the facts. Both the parties had been inspected thoroughly and the proceedings were done accordingly. On 26th September 2014 both, the claimants gave their comments on the application done which opposed the request for an immediate hearing (Kryvoi, 2018). All these dilemmas were making the Tribunal reconsider their decision about whether to provide a join award was being considered and they decided on providing separate results. These details are provided in the Procedural Order No. 1.
Application
Churchill and Planet faced a problem in regard to their investments in Indonesia and as a result of this unexpected phenomenon, the two companies filed a request of arbitration against Indonesia so as to have the matter resolved and see whether they could be allowed to proceed with their investment in the mining industry in the country that they considered to be so lucrative for such a business given that it is an emerging market. The most of the proceedings and hearings of the case were done in the court of Singapore. Both the claimants had to follow the burden and standard of proof as a rule. They had to prove their claims to be right or wrong according to the respondent’s challenges (Ali, and Sainati, 2016). The tribunal relied on Article 42 of the ICSID Convention which stated that rules of the law need to be agreed by both parties and if they are disagreeing then the law of Contracting State needs to be followed by the Tribunal. As both the parties here did not agree so it was necessary for the Tribunal to determine where the issue which was established was subject to international or national law.
Conclusion
After a thorough assessment of the allegations of forgery and fraudulent scheme of the claimants by the respondent was done and based on that the court world provides its judgment and declare the legal consequences (Ahmad, 2016). The position of the parties will be assessed and decided before being presented to the Tribunal. The decision that was awarded by the court after through assessment the claimants lost the case dated 24th February 2014. The 34 documents were not authentic; the arbitration brought in by the claimants was not admissible. It was ordered by the court to bear 75% of the expenses of the respondent in regard to the proceedings which was around $8,646,528. The claimants also had to bear the expenses and fees of the Tribunal as ICSID’s fees.
References
Ahmad, J. (2018). Complicity in Forgery and Investor Due Diligence over Local Partners. The Journal of World Investment & Trade, 19(2), 293-304.
Ali, A. H., & Sainati, T. E. (2016). Adverse Inferences: A Proposed Methodology in the Light of Investment Arbitrations Involving Middle Eastern States. BCDR International Arbitration Review, 3(2), 293-325.
Burnett, H. G., & Beess und Chrostin, J. (2015). Interim Measures in Response to the Criminal Prosecution of Corporations and Their Employees by Host State in Parallel with Investment Arbitration Proceedings. Md. J. Int'l L., 30, 31.
Crockett, A. (2017). The Termination of Indonesia’s BITs: Changing the Bathwater, But Keeping the Baby?. The Journal of World Investment & Trade, 18(5-6), 836-857.
Hodgson, M. (2016). Churchill Mining PLC and the Planet Mining Pty Ltd v Republic of Indonesia: Procedural Order No 15: Reconsideration under the ICSID Convention: No Award Required. ICSID Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal, 31(1), 114-121.
Kryvoi, Y. (2018). ECONOMIC CRIMES IN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 1-29.
Setiawati, W. (2018). The risk of joining the Trans-Pacific partnership for Indonesia: An investment perspective. In Law and Justice in a Globalized World (Vol. 157, No. 165, pp. 157-165). ROUTLEDGE in association with GSE Research.
Sinclair, A. C., & Repousis, O. G. (2017). An Overview of Provisional Measures in ICSID Proceedings. ICSID Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal, 32(2), 431-446.
