INDONESIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Emir Nurmansyah, Theodoor Bakker, Ulyarta Naibaho and Adithya Lesmana, ABNR Counsellors at Law
Additional grounds for arbitrator replacement The 2025 Rules also provide that the arbitrator’s default in the performance of their duty either de jure or de facto can become grounds for their replace - ment, subject to the decision of the Chairman of BANI. The Rules do not elaborate what circumstances would constitute an arbitrator’s de jure or de facto default in the performance of their duty. Previously, there were only three grounds for arbitra - tor replacement, namely (i) the inability of the arbitra - tor (ie, in the event of death or other inability); (ii) the resignation of the arbitrator, and (iii) the repetition of proceedings. All three are retained in the 2025 Rules. Implication and challenges With the introduction of the option of emergency arbi - tration, disputing parties now have legal recourse to apply for interim measures in urgent circumstances before a tribunal is formed. This is a major enhance - ment in commercial dispute resolution, especially considering that similar measures are not present within the framework of the Indonesian court system.
The biggest question is whether the emergency arbi - tral award can be enforced. Law No 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution does not recognise any emergency arbitration procedures. Further, the 2025 Rules explicitly state that the emer - gency arbitral award is provisional in nature. In Astro Nusantara International B.V. and others v PT Ayunda Prima Mitra and others , the Central Jakarta District Court refused the recognition and enforcement of an interim award, partly because the award was deemed not final and binding.
365 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook