header-logo header-logo

International arbitration: clause & effect

25 February 2022 / Masood Ahmed , Syed Naman Ali
Issue: 7968 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , ADR , Arbitration
printer mail-detail
73197
Admissibility & jurisdiction: Masood Ahmed & Syed Ali report on dispute resolution clauses in international commercial arbitration
  • Two recent High Court decisions have confirmed that pre-arbitral dispute resolution obligations are not matters of jurisdiction; rather they are matters of admissibility, which are for arbitral tribunals to determine and not the national courts.

Dispute resolution clauses (sometimes referred to as ADR clauses or tiered clauses) are becoming an increasingly common feature of international commercial contracts. In essence, a dispute resolution clause (DR clause) requires parties to exhaust a number of alternative dispute resolution procedures (eg negotiation, mediation etc) before the matter can be referred to arbitration or litigation. Therefore, DR clauses provide the parties with opportunities to explore whether their dispute can be settled before launching expensive and time-consuming court or arbitration proceedings.

An issue that may arise in arbitration is whether a party’s failure to comply with a DR clause may give rise to an issue of admissibility for the arbitral tribunal, or whether it

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll