[2012] SGCA 35

“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”