In its decision in
Sierra Leone v SL Mining Ltd,(1) the High Court confirmed that alleged non-compliance with the provisions of a multi-tiered dispute resolution clause (in particular, the submission of claims to arbitration prior to the end of a prescribed period of negotiation) is exclusively a matter of admissibility for the arbitral tribunal and cannot lead to a successful jurisdictional challenge under Section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996. This decision confirms the scope of a London-seated tribunal s substantive jurisdiction under Section 30(1) of the Arbitration Act. It also confirms that initiation of arbitration proceedings, in apparent breach of a mandatory multi-tiered dispute resolution clause, may be valid where settlement of the dispute is deemed impossible within the remaining prescribed period.
On 15 February 2021, the English Commercial Court in
Republic of Sierra Leone v. SL Mining Ltd [2021] EWHC 286
(Comm) ruled on the effect of non-compliance with a multi-tier
dispute resolution provision. The decision (available
here) settles a difficult question of English arbitration
law.
In summary the English Commercial Court held that:
Non-compliance with a multi-tier dispute resolution provision
is an issue of admissibility (
i.e. whether the claim is
ripe to be heard) rather than jurisdiction (
i.e. whether
the tribunal is competent to hear the claim at all).
Whether a party has complied with a multi-tier dispute
resolution provision is a procedural matter which falls within the
Canadian aircraft maker De Havilland wins $43 million claim against SpiceJet
De Havilland had sought termination of purchase agreement and payment of damages worth $42.9 million on part of SpiceJet. Court ruled in favour of aircraft maker, saying SpiceJet failed to abide by pact
BusinessToday.In | March 7, 2021 | Updated 11:54 IST
The UK court also dismissed SpiceJet s counterclaim for damages
A UK court has ruled that Canadian aircraft maker De Havilland is entitled to seek damages worth $42.9 million for a contractual dispute with Indian carrier SpiceJet. The Canadian company had dragged SpiceJet to court for failing to make pre-delivery payments for ordering 25 Dash 8-400 aircraft. The court also dismissed SpiceJet s counterclaim for damages, a statement from Brick Court Chambers, UK, said.
On 15 February 2021, the English Commercial Court in
Republic of Sierra Leone v. SL Mining Ltd [2021] EWHC 286 (Comm) ruled on the effect of non-compliance with a multi-tier dispute resolution provision. The decision (available here) settles a difficult question of English arbitration law.
In summary the English Commercial Court held that:
Non-compliance with a multi-tier dispute resolution provision is an issue of admissibility (
i.e. whether the claim is ripe to be heard) rather than jurisdiction (
i.e. whether the tribunal is competent to hear the claim at all).
Whether a party has complied with a multi-tier dispute resolution provision is a procedural matter which falls within the competence of the tribunal rather than the English Court to determine.
The decision clarifies the circumstances under which an arbitral award might be challenged.
A recent decision by the English Commercial Court indicates that failure to comply with a precondition to arbitration (such as an obligation to negotiate) calls into question the admissibility of a claim, rather than calling into question the jurisdiction of the arbitrators to hear such a claim. As parties to arbitration can only challenge an award through the English courts under s. 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (the Act) for lack of jurisdiction, and not in relation to the admissibility of a claim, the decision suggests that s. 67 may not be available to bring challenges concerned with a failure to comply with such preconditions to arbitration.