Philip Morris Asia Limited (Hong Kong) v. The Commonwealth of Australia
This arbitration is conducted under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules of 2010 pursuant to the Agreement between the Government of Hong Kong and the Government of Australia for the Promotion and Protection of Investments.
|Name(s) of Claimant(s)||
Philip Morris Asia Limited (Hong Kong) (Private entity )
|Name(s) of Respondent(s)||The Commonwealth of Australia (State)|
|Names of Parties||-|
|Administering institution||Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA)|
|Type of case||Investment arbitration|
|Subject matter or economic sector||Manufacturing|
|Rules used in arbitral proceedings||UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 2010|
|Treaty or contract under which proceedings were commenced||
|Language of Proceeding||English|
|Seat of Arbitration (by Country)||Singapore|
Professor Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel (Presiding Arbitrator)
|Representatives of the Claimant(s)||
Mr. Stanimir A. Alexandrov
|Representatives of the Respondent(s)||
Mr. Simon Daley PSM
|Representatives of the Parties|
|Number of Arbitrators in case||3|
|Date of commencement of proceeding||22 June 2011|
|Date of issue of final award||-|
|Length of Proceedings||Pending|
Tribunal Publishes Redacted Version of Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility
In the arbitration between Philip Morris Asia Limited and The Commonwealth of Australia, the tribunal issued an Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility on 17 December 2015. A redacted version of that Award has now been published on the Case Repository of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (“PCA”).
The arbitration concerns the effects on the Claimant’s investments in Australia of the enactment and enforcement by Australia of the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 and the implementing regulations known as the Tobacco Plain Packaging Regulations 2011. The tribunal was constituted under the 1993 Agreement between the Government of Hong Kong and the Government of Australia for the Promotion and Protection of Investments. The proceedings are conducted in accordance with the 2010 arbitration rules of the United Nations Conference on International Trade Law (“UNCITRAL”).
In Procedural Order No. 8, the tribunal had ordered the bifurcation of the proceedings such that certain preliminary objections by Australia would be dealt with in a first phase:
Following an exchange of written pleadings in respect of these preliminary objections, a hearing was held in Singapore in February 2015. In April and May 2015, the parties filed two rounds of post-hearing briefs. In its Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, the tribunal accordingly addressed only the three bifurcated objections. While the tribunal rejected Australia’s first two preliminary objections, it upheld the third objection, concluding:
Pursuant to Procedural Order No. 5, each party had an opportunity to identify any confidential information contained in the Award that it proposed to redact before the publication of the Award. Various exchanges between the parties occurred to narrow their differences in respect of certain redactions. In Procedural Order No. 17, the tribunal determined which of the redactions proposed by the parties would be permitted to protect confidential information.