Judgment Header
PT Prima International Development v Kempinski Hotels SA and other appeals [2012] SGCA 35
Loading…
[2012] SGCA 35
Court of Appeal of Singapore9 Jul 2012Civil Appeals Nos 94, 95, 96 and 98 of 2011
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Cited in 18 later decisions. No negative treatment detected.
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Later cases and laws citing this decision
“rimary jurisdiction to arbitrate between the parties. This rationale is stated succinctly by the Court of Appeal, Singapore in PT Prima International Development v. Kempinski Hotel SA & Other Appeals [2012] SGCA 35: 46 An arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction to resolve disputes which have not been referred to it in th”
“primary jurisdiction to arbitrate between the parties. This rationale is stated succinctly by the Court of Appeal, Singapore in PT Prima International Development v Kempinski Hotel SA & Other Appeals [2012] SGCA 35: An arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction to resolve disputes which have not been referred to it in the 7”
“rimary jurisdiction to arbitrate between the parties. This rationale is stated succinctly by the Court of Appeal, Singapore in PT Prima International Development v. Kempinski Hotel SA & Other Appeals [2012] SGCA 35: An arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction to resolve disputes which have not been referred to it in the s”
“primary jurisdiction to arbitrate between the parties. This rationale is stated succinctly by the Court of Appeal, Singapore in PT Prima International Development v Kempinski Hotel SA & Other Appeals [2012] SGCA 35: “An arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction to resolve disputes which have not been referred to it in the”
“primary jurisdiction to arbitrate between the parties. This rationale is stated succinctly by the Court of Appeal, Singapore in PT Prima International Development v Kempinski Hotel SA & Other Appeals [2012] SGCA 35: “An arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction to resolve disputes which have not been referred to it in the”
“38. In PT Prima International Development v Kempinski Hotels SA and other appeals [2012] SGCA 35, the Singapore Court of Appeal confirmed that to determine whether a tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction, it is necessary to refer to the pleaded case of each party and the issues of law or fact raise”
“n 20th December 2019’, the ‘new difference’ examined against the pleadings would be outside the scope of arbitration, citing 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”
“n 20th December 2019’, the ‘new difference’ examined against the pleadings would be outside the scope of arbitration, citing 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”
“is document via eFILING portal 47 Petronas Penapisan (Melaka) Sdn Bhd v. Ahmani Sdn Bhd [2016] 3 CLJ 403 PT Prima International Development v Kempinski Hotels SA and other appeals [2012] 4 SLR 98; [2012] SGCA 35 Read v. Brown (1888) 22 Q.B.D. SDA Architects (sued as a firm) v Metro Millennium Sdn Bhd [2014] 2 MLJ 627 S”
“f the 2nd Ground, Bellworth cited the case authorities of Sigur Ros Sdn Bhd v Master Mulia Sdn Bhd [2018] 3 MLJ 608 (CA) and PT Prima International Development v Kempinski Hotels SA and other appeals [2012] SGCA 35 to support its submission that Setiakon is bound by its pleadings. The pleadings define what had been ref”
“f the 2nd Ground, Bellworth cited the case authorities of Sigur Ros Sdn Bhd v Master Mulia Sdn Bhd [2018] 3 MLJ 608 (CA) and PT Prima International Development v Kempinski Hotels SA and other appeals [2012] SGCA 35 to support its submission that Setiakon is bound by its pleadings. The pleadings define what had been ref”
“primary jurisdiction to arbitrate between the parties. This rationale is stated succinctly by the Court of Appeal, Singapore in PT Prima International Development v Kempinski Hotel SA & Other Appeals [2012] SGCA 35: An arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction to resolve disputes which have not been referred to it in the s”
“primary jurisdiction to arbitrate between the parties. This rationale is stated succinctly by the Court of Appeal, Singapore in PT Prima International Development v Kempinski Hotel SA & Other Appeals [2012] SGCA 35: An arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction to resolve disputes which have not been referred to it in the s”
“primary jurisdiction to arbitrate between the parties. This rationale is stated succinctly by the Court of Appeal, Singapore in PT Prima International Development v Kempinski Hotel SA & Other Appeals [2012] SGCA 35: An arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction to resolve disputes which have not been referred to it in the s”
“primary jurisdiction to arbitrate between the parties. This rationale is stated succinctly by the Court of Appeal, Singapore in PT Prima International Development v Kempinski Hotel SA & Other Appeals [2012] SGCA 35: An arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction to resolve disputes which have not been referred to it in the s”
“primary jurisdiction to arbitrate between the parties. This rationale is stated succinctly by the Court of Appeal, Singapore in PT Prima International Development v Kempinski Hotel SA & Other Appeals [2012] SGCA 35: An arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction to resolve disputes which have not been referred to it in the s”
“rimary jurisdiction to arbitrate between the parties. This rationale is stated succinctly by the Court of Appeal, Singapore in PT Prima International Development v. Kempinski Hotel SA & Other Appeals [2012] SGCA 35: `An arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction to resolve disputes which have not been referred to it in the”
“rimary jurisdiction to arbitrate between the parties. This rationale is stated succinctly by the Court of Appeal, Singapore in PT Prima International Development v. Kempinski Hotel SA & Other Appeals [2012] SGCA 35: `An arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction to resolve disputes which have not been referred to it in the”
Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
No outgoing citations detected.
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Judgment Header
PT Prima International Development v Kempinski Hotels SA and other appeals [2012] SGCA 35
Case Metadata
Case No: Civil Appeals Nos 94, 95, 96 and 98 of 2011
Case Metadata
Court: Court of Appeal of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2012-07-09
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.