Summary

It has frequently been observed that our courts are guided by the principle of minimal curial intervention. Parties are held to their contractual bargain when they choose arbitration as their preferred form of dispute resolution, and high thresholds are imposed on those seeking to challenge awards or to resist their enforcement. But when those thresholds are satisfied, it is in the interest of securing the legitimacy of the arbitral process that appropriate relief be granted.

The present case arises out of a project to construct a thermal power plant in Vietnam (the "Project"). The parties to the appeals are Vietnam Oil and Gas Group ("PVN"), the owner of the Project, and Joint Stock Company (Power Machines - ZTL, LMZ, Electrosila Energomachexport) ("PM"), which was a member of the consortium (the "Consortium") that served as the contractor for the Project. When some major differences arose, PM sought to terminate its contract with PVN by way of two separate notices of termination. PVN contested PM's right to terminate their contract, and their dispute was referred to arbitration, which led to the issuance of an award (the "Final Award") that was largely in favour of PM. In the proceedings below, a Judge of the High Court sitting in the General Division (the "Judge") held that parts of the Final Award were liable to be set aside on the basis of an excess of jurisdiction and/or a breach of natural justice. However, he declined to set aside the Final Award and instead decided to remit the affected parts to the tribunal to consider matters further. The Judge's decision is the subject of cross-appeals in CA/CA 48/2024 ("CA 48") brought by PVN against the Judge's order for remission and CA/CA 49/2024 ("CA 49") brought by PM against the Judge's finding that parts of the Final Award were liable to be set aside.

Arbitration -- Award -- Recourse against award -- Setting aside -- Remission