You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

October 9, 2019

PTIT Focus: Settlement of Disputes through Arbitration in a Thai Concession Agreement

Subscribe to Updates
Petroleum Institute of Thailand: PTIT Focus

With reference to the concession agreement form, as issued under the Ministerial Regulations of the Ministry of Energy regarding the Form for the Designation of a Concession Agreement B.E. 2555 (2012) (“Ministerial Regulations re: the Concession Agreement Form”), the form includes a provision that is related to dispute resolution by arbitration, as set out in Clause 13 of the Concession Agreement.

The principle here applies to scenarios in which (1) a dispute arises in connection with the Minister’s instructions, which requires the concessionaire to rectify a circumstance that constitutes grounds for revocation of the Concession under Section 52 of the Petroleum Act B.E. 2514 (1971), or (2) a dispute exists in respect to the question of whether or not there has been full compliance with the provisions of the Concession, and the parties cannot reach a mutual settlement within 60 days from the date on which one party issued a notice to the other party. In such a scenario, both parties shall settle the dispute through arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration Rules as prescribed by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (“UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules”). The version of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules to be used is the version that is valid on the date the dispute was submitted to the arbitrators.

This principle differs from the previous Concession Agreement Form that was issued under Ministerial Regulation no.4 (B.E. 2514) (1971) and Ministerial Regulation no.7 (B.E. 2532) (1989). This stipulated use of the arbitration rules of the International Court of Justice (“ICJ Arbitration Rules”), which still bind the parties that entered into such concession agreement.

Settlement of a dispute through arbitration is a type of dispute resolution whereby the parties can mutually agree to have a third party, which could either be a sole arbitrator or a group of arbitrators who have specific knowledge and expertise about the disputed issue, act as the person(s) who will consider and decide on the civil dispute that has arisen. Settlement of disputes through arbitration has many advantages, such as (1) offering a convenient and fast process; (2) having few complicated steps involved; and (3) enabling decision-making by persons with specific expertise. In addition, arbitration proceedings remain confidential, and therefore, business information and the reputation of the parties are still maintained. Furthermore, arbitration awards are also enforceable in many countries.

In respect to the award rendered by the arbitrators, the Ministerial Regulations also specify conditions in the Concession Agreement Form that require the arbitrators to take into account the laws of Thailand, and the principles of international laws that may be applicable, and also determine whether the expenses and fees of the arbitrators shall be borne solely by either party or shared proportionately by both parties. The award has to be rendered in writing and specify the reasons for the decision. The award shall be final and binding on both parties.

With reference to the Concession Agreement Form, the place of arbitration shall be in Bangkok, Thailand, unless the parties agree otherwise. The language used in the arbitration procedures shall be in Thai, except where both parties mutually agree to use English.

In addition, the Concession Agreement Form also designates those matters that shall not be referred to arbitrators, which are as follows: (1) criminal offences under the Petroleum Act B.E. 2514 (1971); (2) disputes in connection with the Petroleum Act B.E. 2514 (1971) where the concessionaire has initiated proceedings in a Thai court; and (3) disputes on rulings, or orders, which are treated as final under the Petroleum Act B.E. 2514 (1971).

In conclusion, the clause relating to dispute settlement through arbitration in the Concession Agreement Form designates the rules, form, process, place, and language to be used in the proceedings for the purpose of clarity in the dispute resolution. Arbitration procedures also provide advantages that can help expedite dispute settlements, reduce complicated procedures, and experts to issue awards on the disputes in question. In addition, the arbitration proceedings also serve to maintain full confidentiality regarding the business information of the parties involved.

 

This article first appeared in the April 2019 edition of PTIT Focus, the Petroleum Institute of Thailand’s monthly newsletter. The article was published in both English and Thai. For the original publication, please see the PDF below.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Industries

Energy

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

April 8, 2021
On March 24, 2021, the Prime Minister of Vietnam issued Decision No. 12/2021/QD-TTg issuing regulations on oil spill response. One of the more notable changes is the introduction of templates for oil spill response plans.
Read More
February 23, 2021
As many are already aware, following the change of government in Myanmar on February 1, 2021, a draft Cyber Security Law was proposed which attracted widespread criticism. However, less attention has been paid to significant amendments to two existing laws, some of which have a similar effect to parts of the draft Cyber Security Law. In other words, while the draft Cyber Security Law has not progressed further and is under public scrutiny, significant elements of it have found their way into law in Myanmar by other routes. Because these amendments are already law, it is very important that individuals and businesses in Myanmar understand their implications. Amendments to the Law Protecting the Privacy and Security of Citizens The Law Protecting the Privacy and Security of Citizens (2017), or the “Privacy Law,” was amended on February 13, 2021, less than two weeks after the military government came into power. These amendments chiefly address the power of the government to conduct searches, seizures, and arrests; to extend detention without judicial oversight; and to carry out broad surveillance and investigation activities that could intrude on individual privacy. The amendments accomplish this by suspending various sections of the Privacy Law for as long as the State Administration Council (the military body now governing Myanmar) is in power. The suspended sections include the following: Section 5: Search, seizure, and arrest without civilian observation The relevant part of Section 5 of the Privacy Law states, “The responsible authorities shall … when acting in accordance with existing law, not enter into a person’s residence or a room used as a residence, or a building, compound or building in a compound, for the purpose of search, seizure, or arrest, unless accompanied by minimum of two witnesses who should comprise Ward or Village Tract Administrators…”. The suspension
Read More
February 22, 2021
Following the recent imposition of sanctions on Myanmar individuals and companies by the US, the UK and Canada have now imposed new sanctions. As with the US sanctions, these new measures impact UK and Canadian citizens and companies, and non-UK and non-Canadian companies and citizens with interests in those jurisdictions. The EU has indicated that it is planning to issue similar sanctions in the near future. New UK Sanctions In addition to the 16 individuals already sanctioned by the UK government, on February 18, 2021, the UK government announced that three individuals have been sanctioned for serious human rights violations and are now subject to asset freezes and travel bans. The full list of Myanmar individuals and companies sanctioned by the UK is available on the website of the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation. Breaches of UK financial sanctions are criminal offences punishable in the UK by up to 7 years imprisonment and heavy fines. New Canadian Sanctions Also on February 18, timed to coincide with the UK sanctions, new Canadian sanctions were imposed on nine individuals. As with the UK, Canada already had a number of individuals in the Myanmar military on its sanctions list, and the new additions bring the total number of individuals sanctioned by Canada to 54. All assets of these individuals in Canada are now frozen, and they are banned from travelling to Canada. Canadian businesses or entities may not do business with any of the 54 individuals. Full details of the impact of the sanctions are available on the Government of Canada’s website, as is a database of the Myanmar individuals and companies subject to them. Breach of Canadian sanctions carries with it up to 5 years’ imprisonment in Canada and/or a large fine. Other Countries The EU is reportedly drawing up sanctions
Read More
February 18, 2021
As you will no doubt know, on February 1, 2021, the Myanmar military declared a state of emergency in Myanmar for a period of one year. State Counsellor Daw Aung Sang Su Kyi was detained, as were the president and various significant political and civil leaders. Min Aung Hlaing, commander-in-chief of the Tatmadaw (Myanmar armed forces) has installed himself as chairman of the State Administration Council, the current administration. New sanctions The reaction of the Biden administration has been swift. On February 10, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 14014, which provides bases to impose sanctions on individuals and companies deemed by the US to, among other things: operate in the defense sector of Myanmar; be responsible for policies that undermine democratic processes in Myanmar; have taken actions to undermine democratic processes or institutions, or prohibit, limit, or penalize the exercise of free speech, in Myanmar; or be a spouse or child of the foregoing. On the next day, February 11, the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), imposed sanctions under the new executive order on ten individuals—including General Min Aung Hlaing—and three companies, including Cancri Gems & Jewelry Co, Myanmar Imperial Jade Co, and Myanmar Ruby Enterprise.  All such individuals and companies have now been designated on the US list of specially designated nationals (SDNs). Effect of sanctions As a result of such sanctions, the property of these individuals or companies that is located in the US or is under the possession or control of US companies and citizens is frozen, and US companies and citizens are generally prohibited from dealing deal with any such property.  Reportedly, roughly USD 1 billion of funds belonging to the individuals and companies blocked on February 11 are located in the US and thus now frozen. The SDN list As many
Read More