Singapore Court Decides There Is No Choice Of Active Remedies When Challenging Tribunal’s Ruling On Jurisdiction

The Singapore High Court decides that there is no choice of active remedies for a party challenging a tribunal’s ruling on jurisdiction

Baker McKenzie review the Singapore High Court’s decision in Rakna Arakshaka Lanka Ltd v Avant Garde Maritime Services (Private) Limited [2018] SGHC 78, where the Court held that where a tribunal had ruled on its own jurisdiction as a preliminary question, the party wishing to challenge the tribunal’s jurisdiction had to bring that issue to the supervisory court within 30 days of receipt of notice of the tribunal’s ruling and a failure to do so would preclude such party from raising the same jurisdictional objection in setting aside proceedings pursuant to Article 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Model Law.  The Court held, however, that such a party is not precluded from raising the same jurisdictional challenge when it exercises its passive remedy of resisting enforcement of the award.


About Phillip Rompotis

Phillip practices as a barrister and arbitrator in Hong Kong. He has over 25 years’ litigation and arbitration experience in commercial disputes relating to construction & engineering, financial services, joint venture & shareholders agreements, technology, trusts, property and landlord & tenant. He is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, the Hong Kong Institute of Arbitrators, the Singapore Institute of Arbitrators, the Malaysian Institute of Arbitrators, and a member of various lists/panels of arbitrators.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *