Time Limits in Challenging a Tribunal s Jurisdiction

다국어 초록 (Multilingual 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 (Reference)

1 "UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985"

2 "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.9/264, Art 16"

3 "UK Arbitration Act 1996"

4 Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Company, "The Ministry of Religious Affairs"

5 Dallah Estate and Tourism Holding Company, "The Ministry of Religious Affairs"

6 TeleMates (previously Better Telecom) Pty Ltd, "Standard SoftTel Solutions Pvt Ltd [2011] NSWSC 1365 (11 November 2011)"

7 Downer Construction (New Zealand) Ltd, "Silverfield Developments Ltd (HC Auckland CIV 2004‐404‐4488, 26 October 2004)"

8 "SIAC Rules"

9 Chan Leng Sun, "SC, Singapore Law on Arbitral Awards" Academy Publishing 2011

10 "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.9/246"

11 "Report of the Secretary‐General on the Revised Draft Set of Arbitration Rules, UNICTRAL, 9th Session, Addendum 1(Commentary), UN Doc A/CN.9/97 (1974), reprinted in VI UNCITRAL Ybk 163, 174 (Draft Article 18(2))"

12 "PT Pukuafu Indah and others v Newmont Indonesia Ltd and another [2012] SGHC 187"

13 Astro Nusantara, "PT Ayunda Prima Mitra [2012] SGHC 21"

14 A. Redfern, "Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration" Sweet & Maxwell 2004

15 Gary Born, "International Commercial Arbitration, Vol. I" Wolters Kluwer 2009

16 Peter Binder, "International Commercial Arbitration and Conciliation in UNCITRAL Model Law Jurisdictions" Thomson Reuters 2010

17 Greenberg, "International Commercial Arbitration" Cambridge University press 2011

18 "International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A)"

19 "ICC Rules 2012"

20 Svenska Petroleum Exploration AB, "Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No 2) [2006] EWCA 1529"

21 "Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic v Thai‐Lao Lignite Co Ltd, Civil Appeal 2 ‐ 02 (NCC) ‐ 1286‐2011"

22 "German Zivilprozessordnung (Tenth Book on the Code of Civil Procedure) (German) (“the ZPO”)"

23 Dampskibsselskabet Norden A/S, "Beach Building & Civil Group Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 696 (29 June 2012)"

24 Ranko Group, "Antarctic Maritime SA (Com Ct, NLD, June 23 1999)"

25 "ABC Co v XYZ Co Ltd [2003] 3 SLR(R) 54"