Time Limits in Challenging a Tribunal s Jurisdiction
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
One of the most defining characteristics of arbitration is that an arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction is established by parties’ mutual agreement. If a party to the arbitral proceedings believes that a tribunal constituted lacks jurisdiction to conduct the arbitral proceedings, it may challenge the jurisdiction of the tribunal in different ways. Although the concept of kompetenz‐kompetenz and the grounds to challenge the Tribunal’s jurisdiction are readily accepted in the arbitration community, what parties often fail to observe is the time limit imposed by the relevant laws in bringing such objections. This article aims to examine several main ways of challenging the tribunal’s jurisdiction and the applicable time limits in each scenario. The article will then focus on the consequences of a party’s failure to adhere to the strict time limits and its effect at the post‐award stage. These issues will be considered in the light of case law from different Model law jurisdictions with particular illustrations from the arbitration law of Singapore.
Abstract
One of the most defining characteristics of arbitration is that an arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction is established by parties’ mutual agreement. If a party to the arbitral proceedings believes that a tribunal constituted lacks jurisdiction to conduct the arbitral proceedings, it may challenge the jurisdiction of the tribunal in different ways. Although the concept of kompetenz‐kompetenz and the grounds to challenge the Tribunal’s jurisdiction are readily accepted in the arbitration community, what parties often fail to observe is the time limit imposed by the relevant laws in bringing such objections. This article aims to examine several main ways of challenging the tribunal’s jurisdiction and the applicable time limits in each scenario. The article will then focus on the consequences of a party’s failure to adhere to the strict time limits and its effect at the post‐award stage. These issues will be considered in the light of case law from different Model law jurisdictions with particular illustrations from the arbitration law of Singapore.
참고문헌 (25)
- Chan Leng Sun, "SC, Singapore Law on Arbitral Awards" (2011), Academy Publishing
- Peter Binder, "International Commercial Arbitration and Conciliation in UNCITRAL Model Law Jurisdictions" (2010), Thomson Reuters
- A. Redfern, "Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration" (2004), Sweet & Maxwell
- Greenberg, "International Commercial Arbitration" (2011), Cambridge University press
- Gary Born, "International Commercial Arbitration, Vol. I" (2009), Wolters Kluwer
- "UNCITRAL Analytical Commentary on Draft Text of a Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration: Report of the Secretary General, UN GAOR 9th Comm, 18th Sess,UN Doc A", CN.9, pp.1985, ~
- "Report of the Working Group on International Contract Practices on the work of its seventh session(New York, 6–17 February 1984), UN Doc A", CN.9, pp.1984, ~
- "Report of the Secretary‐General on the Revised Draft Set of Arbitration Rules, UNICTRAL, 9th Session, Addendum 1(Commentary), UN Doc A", CN.9, pp.1975, ~
- 3 SLR(R) 54,
- SGHC 187, , 2012
- "Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic v Thai‐Lao Lignite Co Ltd, Civil Appeal 2 ‐ 02 (NCC) ‐ 1286‐2011", ~ (2011)
- Ranko Group, "Antarctic Maritime SA (Com Ct, NLD, June 23 1999)", ~ (1999)
- Downer Construction (New Zealand) Ltd, "Silverfield Developments Ltd (HC Auckland CIV 2004‐404‐4488, 26 October 2004)", ~ (2004)
- UKSC 46, "2010", ~
- EWCA Civ 755, "2009", ~
- EWCA 1529, , 2006
- NSWSC 1365 (11 November 2011), , 2011
- FCA 696 (29 June 2012), , 2012
- SGHC 21, , 2012
- "International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A)", ~
- "UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985", ~ (1985)
- "UK Arbitration Act 1996", ~ (1996)
- "German Zivilprozessordnung (Tenth Book on the Code of Civil Procedure) (German) (“the ZPO”)", ~
- "ICC Rules 2012" (2012)[URL]
- "SIAC Rules"[URL]