BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd v PT Bayan Resources TBK
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Quentin Loh J,Vivian Ramsey IJ,Anselmo Reyes IJ |
Judgment Date | 26 July 2017 |
Neutral Citation | [2017] SGHC(I) 6 |
Published date | 31 August 2018 |
Date | 26 July 2017 |
Year | 2017 |
Hearing Date | 04 January 2017,05 January 2017,12 January 2017,20 April 2017,06 January 2017,13 January 2017 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Francis Xavier SC, Jeremy Gan, Alina Chia, Tng Sheng Rong, Ang Tze Phern, Tee Su Mien and Vinna Yip (Rajah & Tann LLP) |
Defendant Counsel | Davinder Singh SC, Tony Yeo, Jaikanth Shankar, Chan Yong Wei, Lydia Ni, Harsharan Kaur and Jerrie Tan (Drew & Napier LLC) |
Citation | [2017] SGHC(I) 6 |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Suit No 1 of 2015 |
This is our judgment and determination of the issues in the second tranche (“Tranche 2”) of these proceedings. To recapitulate, these disputes arise out of a joint venture which sought to exploit a technology developed by Australian parties for the upgrading of sub-bituminous coal from mines in Tabang, East Kalimantan, owned by Indonesian parties, into coal briquettes with a higher calorific value and lower moisture content. The terms of the joint venture were set out in the JV Deed dated 7 June 2006. However, during the course of the joint venture, the parties subsequently entered into a number of ancillary agreements, memoranda, side letters and other documents recording their various agreements on the many issues that cropped up.
IntroductionThe background and facts surrounding these disputes have been set out in our earlier judgment dated 12 May 2016 for the first tranche of this trial (“Tranche 1”): see
To recapitulate, in the First Judgment, we determined issues which fell into three categories,
We also held that we were not able to answer the other coal supply issue, Issue 4, which was formulated as follows (see [155] of the First Judgment):
… whether BR was under an obligation to supply and/or assist in procuring coal to be supplied to KSC on the basis set out in the JV Deed, PLFA and/or the April 2011 Side Letter, in around the period between early November 2011 to 2 March 2012.
For Tranche 2, the parties formulated a further list of eleven issues for our determination. Again, the issues fall within three broad categories:1
In this tranche, the parties were, in essence, focused on:
During a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) before Tranche 2, we informed the parties that reference could be made to evidence from Tranche 1 (to avert the need to recall witnesses to repeat their evidence).3 In this judgment, we shall refer to evidence from Tranche 1 where it is relevant.
We heard Tranche 2 on 4–6 and 12–13 January 2017. Thereafter, the parties submitted written closing submissions and reply submissions. We then heard oral closing submissions from the parties on 20 April 2017.
The witnessesThe following witnesses testified for the Plaintiffs in this tranche:
The following witnesses testified for the Defendants in this tranche:
The following representatives of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants also played leading roles in the key events detailed at [13] – [65] below:
We now set out the key facts in Tranche 2. Insofar as these facts are disputed, the following paragraphs constitute our findings of fact.
Events leading up to the November 2011 Board MeetingIt will be seen from the First Judgment that a major bone of contention between the parties was the funding and escalating costs to complete the Tabang Plant. Despite a Funding MOU dated 16 March 2009, numerous emails continued to be exchanged between the parties on this...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Crapper Ian Anthony v Salmizan bin Abdullah
...the parties’ contractual obligations in relation to the joint venture. In BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd & anor v PT Bayan Resources TBK & anor [2017] 5 SLR 77, the SICC ruled on certain contractual obligations under the joint venture and alleged breaches of the parties’ contractual obligations und......
-
BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd and another v PT Bayan Resources TBK and another
...Resources TBK and another [2016] 4 SLR 1 (“First Judgment”); BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd and another v PT Bayan Resources TBK and another [2017] 5 SLR 77 (“Second Judgment”) and BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd and another v PT Bayan Resources TBK and another [2022] SGHC(I) 2 (“Third Judgment”). We will n......
-
BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd v PT Bayan Resources TBK
...628 (refd) BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd v PT Bayan Resources TBK [2016] 4 SLR 1, SICC (refd) BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd v PT Bayan Resources TBK [2017] 5 SLR 77, SICC (refd) BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd v PT Bayan Resources TBK [2019] 3 SLR 1, SICC (refd) Commonwealth of Australia, The v Amann Aviation Pty......
-
BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd and another v PT Bayan Resources TBK and another
...Resources TBK and another [2016] 4 SLR 1 (“First Judgment”) and BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd and another v PT Bayan Resources TBK and another [2017] 5 SLR 77 (“Second Judgment”). For completeness, there is a third judgment on a discrete issue – whether the first plaintiff, BCBCS, could fund the j......