Australia’s Sundance Resources has lost a high-stakes international arbitration after a tribunal rejected its challenge to the Republic of Congo’s revocation of an iron ore mining permit, a decision that underscores the legal risks companies face when resource projects stall in politically sensitive regions.
The ruling came from a tribunal seated in London and operating under International Chamber of Commerce rules. It found that Congo acted within its rights when it withdrew the permit held by Sundance’s subsidiary, Congo Iron, because the project failed to advance within the development window set between 2016 and 2018. As a result, the panel dismissed all claims brought by Sundance and its unit.
Sundance reacted sharply to the outcome. In a statement, non-executive chairman David Porter said the company was “shocked” by the award and accused the tribunal of fundamental errors. He argued that the panel restricted Sundance’s ability to present arguments that later proved central to the decision. Despite that criticism, the ruling represents a decisive setback for the miner, which had framed the permit withdrawal as an unlawful expropriation.
Permit revocation and a fresh legal challenge
Congo’s government revoked the permit in December 2020 and later reassigned it to Sangha Mining Development, a unit linked to China’s Bestway Finance. That move triggered the dispute and led Sundance to launch arbitration proceedings in March 2021. The company sought $8.8 billion in damages tied to the Mbalam–Nabeba iron ore project, which spans the border between Congo and Cameroon.
Although the tribunal sided with Congo, Sundance has not abandoned its legal fight. The company said it has identified what it calls serious procedural irregularities that caused substantial injustice. It plans to challenge the award under the English Arbitration Act 1996 and has asked the High Court in London to set the decision aside. Congo’s government did not immediately comment on the ruling.
Separately, Sundance is awaiting a decision in a related arbitration involving Cameroon. The company said that case is independent and is being heard by a different tribunal, adding that it does not expect the Congo decision to influence the outcome.
For investors and observers, the case highlights the thin line between regulatory enforcement and expropriation claims in extractive industries.
While Sundance insists the permit revocation was improper, the tribunal’s finding reflects a growing willingness by states to defend such actions when companies fail to meet development obligations. The result reinforces a broader lesson for mining firms operating in emerging markets: arbitration offers recourse, but it does not guarantee protection when projects fall behind schedule.