On 14 July 2025, Mr Justice Bryan gave judgment in Tecnicas Renuidas Saudia for Services & Contracting Co. Ltd v Petroleum Chemicals and Mining Company Limited [2025] EWHC 1785 (Comm), setting aside a partial award on preliminary issues (the “Award”) issued by an arbitral tribunal in an institutional arbitration under the auspices of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”). It is one of the very few instances in which the English courts have set aside an award for lack of jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal.
The dispute arose out of a subcontract (the “Sub-Contract”), formed of four separate documents, entered into between Tecnicas Reunidas Saudia For Services & Contracting Co. Ltd (“Tecnicas“) and Petroleum Chemicals and Mining Company (“PCMC”) in relation to the provision of engineering, procurement and construction work in connection with the Fadhili gas processing plant in Saudi Arabia.
In the Award, the tribunal had concluded that the Sub-Contract provided for ICC arbitration in London. Tecnicas challenged the Award on the basis that the arbitration clause in the Purchase Order (one of the four documents constituting the Subcontract) had precedence over other documents forming part of the Sub-Contract and that the Purchase Order provided for ad hoc arbitration only. Tecnicas argued that the Tribunal had misconstrued the relevance (or lack thereof) of the other documents that formed the Sub-Contract and undertaken an impermissible “pick and mix” approach by drawing from different provisions providing for arbitration in the Sub-Contract, ignoring the express precedence of the Purchase Order.
Mr Justice Bryan accepted Tecnicas’ construction of the Sub-Contract and also rejected PCMC’s arguments that (1) Tecnicas had lost its right to object to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under section 73 of the Arbitration Act 1996 and (2) Tecnicas’ objection was not a jurisdictional objection. Mr Justice Bryan therefore declared that the Tribunal constituted under the ICC Rules did not have jurisdiction and set aside the Award in full. Mr Justice Bryan’s judgment emphasised the fundamental difference in nature between institutional and ad hoc arbitrations.
The judgment also stressed the importance of expedition in the context of arbitration proceedings generally, and arbitration claims before the Commercial Court in particular. Despite instructing solicitors, PCMC had failed to serve an acknowledgement of service on time and did not pursue its (late) application for relief from sanctions properly. The Court refused to grant relief from sanctions at the challenge hearing, but permitted PCMC to be heard de bene esse pursuant to CPR 8.4(3) or under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court.
The Judgment is available here.
Emily Wood KC and Matthieu Grégoire acted for Tecnicas, instructed by Simón Navarro González, Andrew Fox, Daniel Wagner and Ana Sofía Sapiña of Sidley Austin LLP.
