This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.
Procedural Background
This document is a judgment rendered by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgericht) on June 15, 2026, concerning an application for revision (Revisionsgesuch) of an arbitral award dated September 26, 2025. The underlying UNCITRAL arbitration was administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) and initiated by a Singaporean corporate claimant against the Commonwealth of Australia under Chapter 11 of the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area (AANZFTA). In the underlying award, the Geneva-seated tribunal declined jurisdiction over the dispute.
Legal Issues and Parties' Positions
The applicant sought to revise the arbitral award pursuant to Article 190a(1)(c) of the Swiss Private International Law Act (PILA), alleging the subsequent discovery of grounds for recusal against the three arbitrators (Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler, William Kirtley, and Donald McRae). The applicant contended that the arbitrators lacked independence and impartiality, arguing that the minimal time they spent on the voluminous record—calculated based on their fee invoices—demonstrated a failure to afford the right to be heard and indicated pre-judgment of the dispute. The respondent State argued that the revision request was inadmissible and should be dismissed.
Court's Analysis and Findings
The Supreme Court dismissed the application, finding that the strict statutory requirements for revision were not satisfied. The Court emphasized that under Article 190a(1)(c) PILA, a revision based on a recusal ground is subsidiary to a standard set-aside application (Beschwerde) and is only permissible if the ground was discovered after the arbitration concluded and could not have been raised earlier. The Court observed that the applicant based its allegations of bias on the tribunal's reasoning in the award and the fee details provided contemporaneously with the award's notification. Consequently, the applicant was required to raise these objections within the standard 30-day time limit for a set-aside application under Article 190(2) PILA. Because the applicant failed to do so, relying instead on subsequent inquiries to the PCA regarding time entries to justify a later revision request, the Court held that the applicant could not invoke Article 190a(1)(c) PILA.
Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the revision request to the extent it was admissible. The Court ordered the applicant to bear the judicial costs of CHF 200,000 and to pay CHF 250,000 to the respondent as compensation for party costs, to be satisfied from the security deposit previously paid to the Court.
