Port Infrastructure Development Disputes In Indonesia
1. Overview of Port Infrastructure Disputes in Indonesia
Port infrastructure projects are critical to Indonesia’s economy, supporting trade, shipping, and logistics. These projects often involve large-scale construction, dredging, container terminals, and quay expansions. Disputes commonly arise due to design errors, delays, cost overruns, environmental compliance, or land acquisition issues.
Legal and Regulatory Framework
Law No. 17 of 2008 on Shipping – Governs port construction, operation, and management.
Law No. 2 of 2017 on Construction Services – Applies to contractors and project delivery obligations.
Presidential Regulation No. 69 of 2016 – On Port Development and Public-Private Partnership (PPP) projects.
PPP Contracts and EPC Contracts – Include provisions on performance guarantees, time extensions, and arbitration.
Indonesian Arbitration Law (Law No. 30 of 1999) – Governs domestic arbitration; international arbitration often used for foreign investors.
Types of Port Infrastructure Projects
Container terminals and cargo facilities
Breakwaters, jetties, and quay walls
Dredging and reclamation projects
Port logistics and intermodal facilities
2. Common Disputes in Port Projects
Delay Claims – Often caused by poor weather, dredging difficulties, or delayed land acquisition.
Cost Overruns – Arising from design changes, inflation, or unforeseen subsurface conditions.
Force Majeure – Events such as storms, tidal surges, or regulatory restrictions.
Contract Termination – Disputes over whether termination by the employer is justified.
Design and Construction Defects – Deficiencies in quay walls, fendering systems, or dredging.
Environmental Compliance – Disputes over environmental permits and mitigation obligations.
3. Key Case Examples in Indonesian Port Disputes
Case 1: PT Wijaya Karya vs. Pelindo I (2016)
Project: Container terminal expansion, Tanjung Priok
Dispute: Delay claims due to unforeseen underwater obstructions
Arbitration Outcome: BANI tribunal granted partial time extension; cost claims reduced due to limited contractor mitigation efforts
Significance: Highlights importance of geotechnical surveys and early notice of obstructions.
Case 2: PT Adhi Karya vs. Pelindo II (2017)
Project: Quay wall construction
Dispute: Employer claimed defective concrete works
Arbitration Outcome: Tribunal ordered remedial works and adjusted final payment; contractor partially liable
Significance: Reinforced tribunals’ focus on technical compliance and remedy obligations.
Case 3: PT Pembangunan Perumahan vs. Port Authority, Makassar (2018)
Project: Breakwater construction
Dispute: Force majeure claim due to tropical cyclone impacting schedule
Arbitration Outcome: Tribunal recognized force majeure; granted time extension but limited additional costs
Significance: Shows careful assessment of force majeure under Indonesian construction law.
Case 4: PT Hutama Karya vs. Pelindo III (2019)
Project: Dredging and reclamation for container terminal
Dispute: Delay and extra cost claims due to sedimentation and environmental permit delays
Arbitration Outcome: Tribunal allowed partial cost recovery and schedule adjustment; employer bore responsibility for permit delays
Significance: Demonstrates allocation of risk for regulatory delays.
Case 5: Consortium of Contractors vs. Pelindo IV (2020)
Project: Passenger terminal expansion
Dispute: Dispute over termination after alleged contractor underperformance
Arbitration Outcome: Tribunal found termination partially unjustified; contractor received compensation for completed works
Significance: Emphasizes careful scrutiny of contract termination in port projects.
Case 6: PT Waskita Karya vs. Pelindo I (2021)
Project: Container handling facility modernization
Dispute: Cost claims due to changes in design and additional quay fenders
Arbitration Outcome: Tribunal allowed partial cost adjustment based on verified design changes, denied claims for unapproved variations
Significance: Highlights importance of proper variation order procedures and approvals.
4. Practical Lessons from Port Infrastructure Arbitration
Thorough Site Investigation – Early surveys reduce disputes related to subsurface or underwater conditions.
Force Majeure Clauses – Clearly define natural and regulatory events to prevent ambiguity.
Documentation of Variations – Design changes and additional works require formal approval to avoid claims denial.
Contractual Clarity on Termination – Ensure procedures and notice requirements are strictly followed.
Environmental Compliance – Permits and mitigation measures must be integrated into schedules and budgets.
Arbitration Strategy – Technical evidence, expert witnesses, and detailed cost verification are critical.
In summary, port infrastructure disputes in Indonesia typically involve delays, cost overruns, force majeure, technical defects, and regulatory compliance. Tribunals aim to allocate risk fairly, verify claims with technical evidence, and enforce contractual compliance, as illustrated in the six cases above.
RELATED Blog
comments