Series
Blogs
Series
Blogs
In Tecnicas Reunidas Saudia for Services & Contracting Co Ltd v Petroleum Chemicals and Mining Company Limited [2025] EWHC 1785 (Comm), the High Court set aside an ICC Tribunal’s (“Tribunal”) partial award in which it found that it had jurisdiction in a situation where the parties’ contractual documentation contained potentially inconsistent arbitration agreements. In particular it found that the Tribunal had erroneously adopted a “pick and mix” approach to assessing the parties’ agreement, ignoring provisions on an order of precedence.
Background
Tecnicas entered into a subcontract with PCMC, concerning electrochemical elements to works on a gas programme in Saudi Arabia. The subcontract comprised a series of agreements, namely:
Importantly, in the PO, the order of these documents set out above was expressly agreed upon as an order of precedence as between them.
These documents contained differently expressed arbitration agreements:
Against that background, PCMC filed a Request for Arbitration (“RFA”) before the ICC.
Tecnicas objected but, in a Partial Award, the Tribunal found it did have jurisdiction.
The jurisdictional issue before the High Court
Tecnicas challenged the Partial Award under section 67 of the AA 1996 (the “s.67 Application”). It did so on the ground that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim, because the parties never agreed to ICC arbitration, but only to an ad hoc arbitration in London by three arbitrators as set out in the PO.
Having dismissed objections that Tecnicas had failed to challenge the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in a timely manner, the judge turned to its fundamental objection, which was that the PO, as executed, contained the arbitration agreement between the parties, and was itself at the top of the order of precedence. As such, the PO took precedence over the other contractual documentation.
PCMC accepted that the PO was at the top of the hierarchy. However, it argued that all documents forming the subcontract should nonetheless be read together, and that when clause 11.1 of the PO was read with clause 32 of the GTCCS, the parties had agreed for arbitration in London, under ICC Rules, governed by English law (a position accepted by the Tribunal).
Bryan J agreed with Tecnicas:
Ultimately, therefore, Bryan J held that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction and set aside the Partial Award.
Comment
In some contexts, for example construction contracts, it may be common for parties to conclude a number of contractual documents which potentially overlap. This decision reinforces that, in such situations, it will help to give careful consideration to the potential presence of multiple and differing arbitration agreements. In such situations, ideally, consistent arbitration provisions might be concluded to promote consistency. But, if not, and the parties have sought to resolve any inconsistency through an order of precedence than, as a matter of English law, that arrangement will be respected and it will be inappropriate to “pick and mix” from conflicting arbitration agreements to try and construct an agreement.
The case is also a helpful reminder that when it comes to challenging an arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction, the AA imposes restrictions on the timing for doing so and parties should make sure they do so promptly and within those limits.
Click here for the High Court’s judgment.23 September 2025
Up next