Case Study of Astro vs Lippo
After a 3 year fight in arbitrary courts, the Astro versus Lippo Group reaches it's final stretch for the finish line. A long running legal battle was sought between Astro, a international satellite television network company owned by Malaysia big shot Ananda Krishnan and First Media, a brand of multifarious owned Lippo Group led by James Riady when the latter failed to pay the USD$250 million to the Malaysian based Company despite by court order on July 2012, by High Court Judge Belinda Ang which was followed by a three-day hearing, enforcing the awards made back in February 2010 by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), upholding First Media to follow the payment procedures.
It was mentioned that the lack of jurisdiction couldn't be conjured by First Media to resist the enforcement of the awards as it had not chosen to appeal on the hearing three years ago. Despite the clear orders ruled by the High Court, on March 1st 2013 First Media's lawyers from Bradell Brothers LLP submitted a written submission in hearsay that the judge made (as quoted from the star online article) "several key errors in her analysis on the enforcement of the awards" and that the judgement itself, as quoted by the Singapore Straits Times; "ought to be reversed on the basis that the Jakarta-based firm was entitled to resist the enforcement of the awards although it had not taken steps to set them aside"
On a 10 hour session in Singapore Court in April 2013, First Media then continued to defend that they did not waived their right to object to the award despite their participation in the arbitration hearings earlier in 2010 to which the acting lawyer for Astro, Mr. David Joseph, argued in return that First Media had given up their right to object due to the lack of objection in timing at the arbitration tribunal's ruling within the stipulated time frame.
The final result has yet been made as the judge also noted that it is possible for a party to participate in
It was mentioned that the lack of jurisdiction couldn't be conjured by First Media to resist the enforcement of the awards as it had not chosen to appeal on the hearing three years ago. Despite the clear orders ruled by the High Court, on March 1st 2013 First Media's lawyers from Bradell Brothers LLP submitted a written submission in hearsay that the judge made (as quoted from the star online article) "several key errors in her analysis on the enforcement of the awards" and that the judgement itself, as quoted by the Singapore Straits Times; "ought to be reversed on the basis that the Jakarta-based firm was entitled to resist the enforcement of the awards although it had not taken steps to set them aside"
On a 10 hour session in Singapore Court in April 2013, First Media then continued to defend that they did not waived their right to object to the award despite their participation in the arbitration hearings earlier in 2010 to which the acting lawyer for Astro, Mr. David Joseph, argued in return that First Media had given up their right to object due to the lack of objection in timing at the arbitration tribunal's ruling within the stipulated time frame.
The final result has yet been made as the judge also noted that it is possible for a party to participate in