Matters seem to have come to a head in the last 18 months due to decisions in the proceedings in the Singapore High Court, and subsequently Court of Appeal, between PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero) TBK and CRW Joint Operation,2 to the effect, broadly speaking, that a binding DAB decision cannot be enforced by means of a final arbitral award without a review of the merits of the DAB’s decision in respect of the underlying dispute.

The Singapore judgments have attracted much attention in specialist legal journals. Meanwhile, however, other proceedings have explored the options available for the enforcement of binding but not final DAB decisions, prompted in part by a conviction that a party that is successful in a DAB procedure should not be obliged to include within the scope of its claims in arbitration the merits of the DAB’s decision on underlying disputes in order to obtain enforcement. Such an obligation, and its inevitable consequences for a claimant in terms of a lengthy and costly arbitration, seems to be particularly unfair in circumstances where the losing party has served a notice of dissatisfaction but has subsequently failed to refer the merits of the DAB decision to arbitration in order to have it revised.