Mobil Oil Indonesia Inc. v. Asamera Oil (Indonesia) Ltd.
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
392 N.Y.S.2d 614 (1977)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
In July 1968, Mobil Oil Indonesia, Inc. (Mobil) (plaintiff) entered a contract with Asamera (Indonesia) Ltd. (Asamera) (defendant). The contract, which concerned the contract rights to explore and produce vast petroleum reserves, contained a broad arbitration clause providing that the parties would settle any dispute arising out of the contract by arbitration in New York City under the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Rules. When the parties executed the agreement and when the parties initially referred the dispute to arbitration in November 1974, the 1955 ICC Rules were in force. However, on June 1, 1975, the ICC adopted new Rules (the 1975 Rules). After meeting to prepare the Terms of Reference to govern the arbitral proceeding, a majority of the arbitrators ruled the proceedings thereafter would proceed under the 1975 Rules. In October 1975, Mobil appealed to the ICC Court of Arbitration, asking the court to order the arbitrators to apply the 1955 Rules. The ICC Court of Arbitration held that only the arbitrators could decide on the ICC Rules and ordered the arbitrators to formalize the decision on the rules. In March 1976, the arbitrators in a majority vote ruled in an interlocutory award that the 1975 Rules would apply to the arbitration. The majority of the arbitrators found that the parties intended to refer to the Rules at the time of the arbitration. The majority also found that the principle under New York is to apply procedural rules as the rules exist at the time the procedural issues arise. The dissenting arbitrator found the parties intended the 1955 Rules to apply. Mobil asked the New York courts to require the arbitral tribunal to use the 1955 ICC Rules, and the lower courts found that pre-arbitration discovery was permitted under the 1975 Rules.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Nunez, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.