PT Tugu Pratama Indonesia v Magma Nusantara Ltd

JurisdictionSingapore
Judgment Date10 September 2003
Date10 September 2003
Docket NumberOriginating Motion No 9 of 2003
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex
6 cases
  • Sanum Investments Ltd v Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 29 September 2016
    ...evidential value before a court that has to determine that question”. Similarly, in PT Tugu Pratama Indonesia v. Magma Nusan—tara Ltd[2003] 4 SLR(R) 257, Judith Prakash J (as she then was) noted (at [18]) that “the court makes an independent determination on the issue of jurisdiction and is......
  • Sanum Investments Ltd v Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 29 September 2016
    ...evidential value before a court that has to determine that question”. Similarly, in PT Tugu Pratama Indonesia v Magma Nusantrara Ltd [2003] 4 SLR(R) 257, Judith Prakash J (as she then was) noted (at [18]) that “the court makes an independent determination on the issue of jurisdiction and is......
  • Bmo v Bmp
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • Invalid date
    ...reviewing an arbitral tribunal’s decision on jurisdiction under s 10(3) of the IAA. In PT Tugu Pratama Indonesia v Magma Nusantara Ltd [2003] 4 SLR(R) 257, Judith Prakash J (as she then was) heard a similar application under Art 16(3) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Ar......
  • Bnp v Bnr
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 31 October 2017
    ...with the parties’ objectively ascertained intention will not be enforced (see PT Tugu Pratama Indonesia v Magma Nusantara Ltd [2003] 4 SLR(R) 257 at [20]). It is clear from cl 24.2 that the ICC Rules are expressly incorporated by reference into cl 24. Clause 24.2 further provides that dispu......
  • Get Started for Free
2 books & journal articles
  • Contract Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2003, December 2003
    • 1 December 2003
    ...Ltd v Aquagen International Pte Ltd[2003] 3 SLR 130; ABC Co v XYZ Co Ltd[2003] 3 SLR 546; PT Tugu Pratama Indonesia v Magma Nusantara Ltd[2003] 4 SLR 257; Teck Guan Sdn Bhd v Beow Guan Enterprises Pte Ltd[2003] 4 SLR 276; Jurong Engineering Ltd v Black & Veatch Singapore Pte Ltd[2004] 1 SLR......
  • Arbitration
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2003, December 2003
    • 1 December 2003
    ...before the tribunal and may decide the same afresh. 3.32 This approach was taken in PT Tugu Pratama Indonesia v Magma Nusantara Ltd[2003] 4 SLR 257. There the substantive dispute related to whether the policy coverage was US$2,500,000 or US$10,000,000. The claim arose out of a claim under a......