## Facts

- Asamera entered into Indonesian agreements to explore and develop hydrocarbons in a large Sumatra concession (“Area B”).
- Asamera later assigned its interests to Mobil under a New York-law assignment agreement providing for royalties on “crude oil” and containing a broad ICC arbitration clause requiring arbitration in New York for disputes “arising out of or relating to” the agreement.
- Mobil discovered substantial natural gas reserves in Area B, and the parties disputed whether royalty obligations extended beyond “crude oil” to gas and other hydrocarbon products.
- The parties commenced ICC arbitration when the ICC’s 1955 Rules were in effect; during the arbitration, the ICC adopted revised 1975 Rules.
- A majority of the arbitral tribunal issued an interlocutory ruling that the arbitration would proceed under the 1975 Rules rather than the 1955 Rules; a dissenting arbitrator disagreed.
- Mobil petitioned New York courts to compel the tribunal to apply the 1955 Rules and to limit discovery associated with the 1975 Rules.

## Issues

1. Whether New York courts may review or vacate an arbitrators’ interlocutory procedural ruling selecting which ICC procedural rules govern a pending arbitration.
2. Whether, before a final award, a court may prescribe procedural and discovery limits for an ICC arbitration notwithstanding a broad agreement to arbitrate under ICC auspices.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division denied Mobil’s request for judicial intervention.
- The court held that it could not review or vacate an interlocutory procedural ruling of arbitrators, including the tribunal’s selection of the applicable ICC rules, before a final award.
- The court declined to direct or restrict discovery in the ongoing arbitration, treating discovery management as part of arbitral procedure entrusted to the tribunal.

## Legal Principles

- Judicial review under New York arbitration law is generally confined to final arbitral awards; interlocutory procedural determinations are not immediately reviewable.
- When parties agree to institutional arbitration through a broad arbitration clause, procedural questions (including application of institutional rules and discovery management) are committed to the arbitral tribunal in the first instance.
- Courts should not supervise or revise mid-arbitration procedural choices absent a final award and a statutory basis for vacatur or modification.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the principle of limited judicial involvement in ongoing arbitration by refusing to review an arbitral tribunal’s interlocutory decision selecting the governing ICC rules and by declining to control discovery or other procedural details before a final award.


Mobil Oil Indonesia Inc. v. Asamera Oil (Indonesia) Ltd., 56 A.D.2d 339, 392 N.Y.S.2d 614 (App. Div. 1st Dep’t 1977)