header-logo header-logo

25 February 2022 / Masood Ahmed , Syed Naman Ali
Issue: 7968 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , ADR , Arbitration
printer mail-detail

International arbitration: clause & effect

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 is an issue of jurisdiction for the court under

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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll