Judgment Header
PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SA [2006] SGCA 41
Court DecisionSGCA
[2006] SGCA 41
[2006] SGCA 41
Court of Appeal of Singapore1 Dec 2006CA 127/2005
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Subsequent treatment
Cited in 17 later decisions. No negative treatment detected.
How this case connects
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Cited by
17Later cases and laws citing this decision
“ard under subpara 37(1)(a)(v) **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 33 AA 2005 (see PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SA [2006] SGCA 41). - Subpara 37(1)(a)(vi) of the AA 2005 [38] Sub-s 21(1) AA 2005 provides that “Subject to the provisions of”
“ard under subpara 37(1)(a)(v) **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 33 AA 2005 (see PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SA [2006] SGCA 41). - Subpara 37(1)(a)(vi) of the AA 2005 [38] Sub-s 21(1) AA 2005 provides that “Subject to the provisions of”
“eous interpretations of the law and of the facts are not grounds on which the courts can set aside an award under subpara 37(1)(a)(v) AA 2005 (see PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SA [2006] SGCA 41). **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 65”
“g PT Prima International Development v Kempinski Hotels SA and other appeals [2012] SGCA 35; [2012] 4 SLR 98, the Singapore Court of Appeal case of PT ASURANSI JASA INDONESIA (PERSERO) V DEXIA BANK SA[2006] SGCA 41; [2007] 1 SLR 597; Kerajaan Malaysia v Perwira Bintang Holdings Sdn Bhd [2015] 6 MLJ 126; [2015] 1 CLJ 61”
“g PT Prima International Development v Kempinski Hotels SA and other appeals [2012] SGCA 35; [2012] 4 SLR 98, the Singapore Court of Appeal case of PT ASURANSI JASA INDONESIA (PERSERO) V DEXIA BANK SA[2006] SGCA 41; [2007] 1 SLR 597; Kerajaan Malaysia v Perwira Bintang Holdings Sdn Bhd [2015] 6 MLJ 126; [2015] 1 CLJ 61”
Show 12 moreShow fewer
“eous interpretations of the law and of the facts are not grounds on which the courts can set aside an award under subpara 37(1)(a)(v) AA 2005 (see PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SA [2006] SGCA 41).” (see too, the decision of the Court of Appeal in Huawei Technologies (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v Maxbury Comm”
- CitedTRANSGRID VENTURES SDN BHD v COLAS RAIL SYSTEM ENGINEERING SDN BHD (WA-24C(ARB)-54-12/2019)Case
“eous interpretations of the law and of the facts are not grounds on which the courts can set aside an award under subpara 37(1)(a)(v) AA 2005 (see PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SA [2006] SGCA 41).” (see too, the decision of the Court of Appeal in Huawei Technologies (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v Maxbury Comm”
“eous interpretations of the law and of the facts are not grounds on which the courts can set aside an award under subpara 37(1)(a)(v) AA 2005 (see PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SA [2006] SGCA 41).” (see too, the decision of the Court of Appeal in Huawei Technologies (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v Maxbury Comm”
“rly injurious to the public good or where it violates the most basic notion of morality and justice (see the Singapore Court of Appeal decision in PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SA [2006] SGCA 41 and the Court of Appeal decision in MTM Millenium Holding Sdn Bhd v Pasukhas Construction Sdn Bhd & Anor”
“rly injurious to the public good or where it violates the most basic notion of morality and justice (see the Singapore Court of Appeal decision in PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SA [2006] SGCA 41 and the Court of Appeal decision in MTM Millenium Holding Sdn Bhd v Pasukhas Construction Sdn Bhd & Anor”
- CitedSPNB ASPIRASI SDN BHD v TUNAS MANJA DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION (KL) SDN BHD (WA-24C(ARB)-31-07/2022)Case
“eous interpretations of the law and of the facts are not grounds on which the courts can set aside an award under subpara 37(1)(a)(v) AA 2005 (see PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SA [2006] SGCA 41).". … S/N VZpppAL0epgi09yodGlQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this docu”
“eous interpretations of the law and of the facts are not grounds on which the courts can set aside an award under subpara 37(1)(a)(v) AA 2005 (see PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SA [2006] SGCA 41).". … **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2”
“3 Pancaran Prima Sdn Bhd v Iswarabena Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [2020] 9 CLJ 466 Kelana Erat Sdn Bhd v Niche Properties Sdn Bhd [2012] 5 MLJ 809 PT Asuransi Jaya Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SA [2006] SGCA 41 Taman Bandar Baru Masai Sdn Bhd v Dindings Corporation Sdn Bhd [2009] MLJU 0793; [2010] 5 CLJ 83 Tridant Eng”
- CitedHuawei Technologies (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v Maxbury Communications Sdn Bhd (W-02(NCVC)(A)-776-04/2017)Case
“2005. ________________________ 58 [2003] 1 SCR 178; 2003 SCC 17. 65 [2005] 3 WLR 129. 75 [2006] SGCA 41. 77 Francis Klein Pvt Ltd v Union of India (1995) 2 Arb LR 298. 78 (2000) (2) Arb LR 684 (Bom). …..” [39] It is therefore apparent that the fact that the arbitrator is accused of having failed to co”
“relating to a substantive dispute on liability. As far as liability is concerned, it is final and binding. [35] The Singapore Court of Appeal in PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SA [2006] SGCA 41 held that the nomenclature or label used by the Arbitral Tribunal to describe its decision is irrelevant. W”
“he public good or where it violates the most basic notion of morality and justice. Similarly, the same principle applied in the Singapore case of PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v. Dexia Bank SA [2006] SGCA 41. Whether the Tribunal (by majority) breach the principles of natural justice? [27] From a perusal of the”
“ding Sdn Bhd v Pasukhas Construction Sdn Bhd & Anor [2013] 1 LNS 1325, which cited with approval the decision of the Singapore Court of Appeal in PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v. Dexia Bank SA [2006] SGCA 41, which states as follow- 7 “In discussing the term "public policy", it was understood that it was not equ”
Authorities cited
0Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
No outgoing citations detected.
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Case Metadata
Case No: CA 127/2005
Case Metadata
Court: Court of Appeal of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2006-12-01
Something wrong on this page?
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.