The jurisdiction of arbitrators
Series: Arbitration Law Monthly ; 1(6) August 2001, 1-5(5)Publication details: 2001Subject(s): Summary: Discusses CA's ruling in "LG Caltex Gas Co Ltd and Contigroup Inc v China National Petroleum and China Petroleum Technology & Development Corporation". CA reversed Aikens J's earlier decision that the parties had entered into an ad hoc agreement to give the arbitrator jurisdiction to decide whether there was a binding contract of sale between them, and that this agreement therefore precluded any challenge to the arbitrator's ultimate award that there was no sale agreement between them. CA found that, under Arbitration Act 1996 s67, Caltex was allowed to challenge the ruling of the arbitrator that he had no jurisdiction. Discusses what must be derived from this decision regarding the approach parties should take where a jurisdictional problem arises before the arbitrator (Partly taken from journal headnote).| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS64530 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 114796-1001 |
Discusses CA's ruling in "LG Caltex Gas Co Ltd and Contigroup Inc v China National Petroleum and China Petroleum Technology & Development Corporation". CA reversed Aikens J's earlier decision that the parties had entered into an ad hoc agreement to give the arbitrator jurisdiction to decide whether there was a binding contract of sale between them, and that this agreement therefore precluded any challenge to the arbitrator's ultimate award that there was no sale agreement between them. CA found that, under Arbitration Act 1996 s67, Caltex was allowed to challenge the ruling of the arbitrator that he had no jurisdiction. Discusses what must be derived from this decision regarding the approach parties should take where a jurisdictional problem arises before the arbitrator (Partly taken from journal headnote).