Australia

Australia

NO. Year of initiation Short case name Full case name Applicable IIA Arbitral rules Administering institution Summary Details of investment Outcome of original proceedings Respondent State Home State of investor Economic sector Economic subsector Arbitrators Amount claimed Amount awarded (or settled for) Breaches alleged Breaches found Decisions Individual opinions Follow-on proceeding type Follow-on proceeding status Follow-on decisions Follow-on individual opinions ICSID annulment committee members
1 2017 APR Energy and others v. Australia APR Energy LLC, Power Rental Asset Co Two LLC, Power Rental Op Co Australia LLC v. Australia Australia-United States FTA (2004) UNCITRAL Data not available Investment: Rental agreement for power generation equipment with Forge Group Power Pty LTD (“Forge Group”).

Summary: Claims arising out of the ANZ Bank’s alleged illegal seizure of the claimants’ turbines for power generation, which were leased by the claimants to Forge Group prior to its insolvency and recovered by the ANZ Bank as property for the payment of the Group’s debt, as well as an Australian court decision to the claimants’ detriment.
Rental agreement for power generation equipment with Forge Group Power Pty LTD (“Forge Group”). Pending Australia United States of America Tertiary: N - Administrative and support service activities 77 - Rental and leasing activities Data not available 260.00 mln USD Data not available Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Full protection and security, or similar

Direct expropriation
Pending None None None None None None None
2 2011 Philip Morris v. Australia Philip Morris Asia Limited v. The Commonwealth of Australia (PCA Case No. 2012-12) Australia - Hong Kong, China SAR BIT (1993) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Shareholding in Australian subsidiaries engaged in the manufacturing, import, market and distribution of tobacco products; related intellectual property rights.

Summary: Claims arising out of the enactment and enforcement by the Government of the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 and its alleged effect on investments in Australia owned or controlled by the claimant.
Shareholding in Australian subsidiaries engaged in the manufacturing, import, market and distribution of tobacco products; related intellectual property rights. Decided in favour of State Australia Hong Kong, China SAR Secondary: C - Manufacturing 12 - Manufacture of tobacco products Böckstiegel, K.-H. - President

Kaufmann-Kohler, G. - Claimant

McRae, D. M. - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Full protection and security, or similar

Umbrella clause

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
None - jurisdiction declined Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility dated 17 December 2015

Final Award Regarding Costs dated 8 March 2017
None None None None None None
NO. Year of initiation Short case name Full case name Applicable IIA Arbitral rules Administering institution Summary Details of investment Outcome of original proceedings Respondent State Home State of investor Economic sector Economic subsector Arbitrators Amount claimed Amount awarded (or settled for) Breaches alleged Breaches found Decisions Individual opinions Follow-on proceeding type Follow-on proceeding status Follow-on decisions Follow-on individual opinions ICSID annulment committee members
1 2020 Barrick v. Papua New Guinea Barrick (PD) Australia Pty Limited v. Independent State of Papua New Guinea (ICSID Case No. ARB/20/27) Australia - Papua New Guinea BIT (1990) ICSID ICSID Investment: Investments in Barrick Niugini Ltd, a joint venture holding rights under a special mining lease for the operation of the Porgera gold mine located in the Enga Province of Papua New Guinea.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s decision not to extend a special mining lease held by the claimant’s local company, Barrick Niugini, for the operation of the Porgera gold mine.
Investments in Barrick Niugini Ltd, a joint venture holding rights under a special mining lease for the operation of the Porgera gold mine located in the Enga Province of Papua New Guinea. Pending Papua New Guinea Australia Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 7 - Mining of metal ores Mourre, A. - President

King, B. D. - Claimant

Sands, P. - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Data not available Pending None None None None None None None
2 2020 Prairie v. Poland Prairie Mining Limited v. Republic of Poland Australia - Poland BIT (1991)

The Energy Charter Treaty (1994)
Data not available Data not available Investment: Ownership of the Jan Karski and Debiensko coal mines, holding exploration and mining concessions.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged actions to block the claimant’s coking coal projects at the Jan Karski and Debiensko mines.
Ownership of the Jan Karski and Debiensko coal mines, holding exploration and mining concessions. Pending Poland Australia Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 5 - Mining of coal and lignite Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Pending None None None None None None None
3 2019 Range Resources v. Georgia Range Resources Limited v. Georgia The Energy Charter Treaty (1994) Data not available Data not available Investment: Indirect interest in a production sharing contract for an oil and gas project (“block VIA”) in Georgia through a 65% shareholding in Strait Oil and Gas Limited.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged wrongful termination of a production sharing contract with Strait Oil and Gas Limited for “block VIA”, an oil and gas project in Georgia in which the claimant held an indirect interest.
Indirect interest in a production sharing contract for an oil and gas project (“block VIA”) in Georgia through a 65% shareholding in Strait Oil and Gas Limited. Discontinued Georgia Australia Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 6 - Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas Tribunal not constituted 21.90 mln USD Data not available Data not available Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability None None None None None None None
4 2018 Emerge Gaming and Tantalum International v. Egypt Emerge Gaming Ltd. and Tantalum International Ltd. v. Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/18/22) Australia - Egypt BIT (2001) ICSID ICSID Investment: 50% shareholding in Tantalum Egypt JSC, an Egyptian company that held the mining rights to the Abu Dabbab mine.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Egyptian authorities’ allegedly illegal measures to gain control of the claimants’ licences for the exploitation of a tantalum and tin mine.
50% shareholding in Tantalum Egypt JSC, an Egyptian company that held the mining rights to the Abu Dabbab mine. Pending Egypt Australia Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 7 - Mining of metal ores Comair-Obeid, N. - President

Smith, G. - Claimant

Cremades, B. M. - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Data not available Pending None None None None None None None
5 2018 Munshi v. Mongolia Mohammed Munshi v. Mongolia The Energy Charter Treaty (1994) Data not available Data not available Investment: Minority shareholding (11%) in Gobi Coal & Energy Ltd., a company engaged in coal mining projects in Mongolia.

Summary: Claims arising out of the claimant’s detention in Mongolia on fraud charges, the freezing of Gobi Coal’s assets and suspension of its licences by the Government.
Minority shareholding (11%) in Gobi Coal & Energy Ltd., a company engaged in coal mining projects in Mongolia. Pending Mongolia United Kingdom

Australia
Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 5 - Mining of coal and lignite Name not available - President

Simma, B. - Claimant

Khan, M. A. - Respondent
145.00 mln USD Data not available Data not available Pending None None None None None None None
6 2017 Kingsgate v. Thailand Kingsgate Consolidated Ltd v. The Kingdom of Thailand Australia-Thailand FTA (2004) UNCITRAL Data not available Investment: Full ownership of Akara Resources Public Co Limited (“Akara”), a local company that held a metallurgical processing licence for the Chatree gold mine located in central Thailand.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged indirect expropriation of the Chatree gold mine, owned and operated by the claimant’s local subsidiary Akara, through measures taken by the Government in 2016, including non-renewal of Akara’s processing licence for the Chatree mine beyond 2016 and an order to close the mine and to suspend all gold mining and related activities in the country by the end of 2016.
Full ownership of Akara Resources Public Co Limited (“Akara”), a local company that held a metallurgical processing licence for the Chatree gold mine located in central Thailand. Pending Thailand Australia Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 7 - Mining of metal ores Lévy, L. - President

Kaplan, N. - Claimant

Thomas, J. C. - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Indirect expropriation
Pending None None None None None None None
7 2012 Churchill Mining and Planet Mining v. Indonesia Churchill Mining and Planet Mining Pty Ltd v. Republic of Indonesia (ICSID Case No. ARB/12/40 and 12/14) Indonesia - United Kingdom BIT (1976)

Australia - Indonesia BIT (1992)
ICSID ICSID Investment: Controlling interest in the mining East Kutai Coal Project; rights under related mining licenses.

Summary: Claims arising out of the unilateral revocation by the Government of mining licenses in which the claimants held interests.
Controlling interest in the mining East Kutai Coal Project; rights under related mining licenses. Decided in favour of State Indonesia United Kingdom

Australia
Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 5 - Mining of coal and lignite Kaufmann-Kohler, G. - President

van den Berg, A. J. - Claimant

Hwang, M. - Respondent
1315.00 mln USD Data not available Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures

Indirect expropriation
None - jurisdiction declined Decision on Jurisdiction (Churchill Mining Plc) dated 24 February 2014

Decision on Jurisdiction (Planet Mining Pty Ltd) dated 24 February 2014

Award dated 6 December 2016
None ICSID annulment proceedings Award/decision upheld (ICSID annulment proceedings) Decision on Annulment dated 18 March 2019 (ICSID annulment proceedings) None Hascher, D. - President

Böckstiegel, K.-H. - Member

Kalicki, J. E. - Member
8 2012 Tethyan Copper v. Pakistan Tethyan Copper Company Pty Limited v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan (ICSID Case No. ARB/12/1) Australia - Pakistan BIT (1998) ICSID ICSID Investment: Rights under a joint venture agreement concluded with the Province of Balochistan for the development of a copper-gold mine.

Summary: Claims arising out of the decision by the Pakistani province of Balochistan to refuse the application by claimant’s local operating subsidiary for a mining lease in respect of the Reko Diq gold and copper site.
Rights under a joint venture agreement concluded with the Province of Balochistan for the development of a copper-gold mine. Decided in favour of investor Pakistan Australia Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 7 - Mining of metal ores Sachs, K. - President

Alexandrov, S. A. - Claimant

Beechey, J. - Claimant (replaced)

Hoffmann, L. - Respondent
8500.00 mln USD 4087.00 mln USD Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Indirect expropriation

Other
Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Indirect expropriation

Other
Decision on the Respondent’s application to dismiss the claims dated 20 March 2017

Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability dated 10 November 2017

Award dated 12 July 2019
None ICSID annulment proceedings Pending (ICSID annulment proceedings) None None Kim, J. - President

Sepúlveda Amor, B. - Member

Wallgren-Lindholm, C. - Member
9 2010 White Industries v. India White Industries Australia Limited v. The Republic of India Australia - India BIT (1999) UNCITRAL None Investment: Rights under certain contract concluded with a State-owned mining company, a bank guarantee and an ICC award rendered in White Industries' favour.

Summary: Claims arising out of alleged judicial delays by the Government of India that left the claimant unable to enforce an ICC award for over nine years concerning a contractual dispute with Coal India, a State-owned mining entity.
Rights under certain contract concluded with a State-owned mining company, a bank guarantee and an ICC award rendered in White Industries' favour. Decided in favour of investor India Australia Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 5 - Mining of coal and lignite Rowley, J. W. - President

Brower, C. N. - Claimant

Lau, C. - Respondent
8.70 mln AUD (8.80 mln USD) 4.10 mln AUD (4.10 mln USD) Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Most-favoured nation treatment

Transfer of funds

Other
Most-favoured nation treatment

Other
Final Award dated 30 November 2011 None None None None None None