Answer ... A party must raise an objection to the jurisdiction of the tribunal no later than the submission of the statement of defence. A plea that the tribunal is exceeding the scope of its authority must be raised as soon as such a matter is raised during the proceedings. However, in either of the cases mentioned above, a tribunal may admit a later plea if it considers the delay justified (Article 16(2) of the UNCITRAL Model Law). Similar provisions may be found in Sections 21(4), (5), (6), and (7) of the Arbitration Act.

For more information about this answer please contact: Alvin Yeo and Koh Swee Yen from WongPartnership LLP

Answer ... Yes, the arbitral tribunal can rule on its own jurisdiction, including on the existence or validity of an arbitration agreement. This doctrine of competence-competence is provided for under Article 16(1) of the UNCITRAL Model Law and Section 21(1) of the Arbitration Act.

For more information about this answer please contact: Alvin Yeo and Koh Swee Yen from WongPartnership LLP

Answer ... A party should typically raise its jurisdictional objections before the tribunal first, before it turns to the courts of the seat. It is possible for a party to decline to participate in the arbitration on the basis of jurisdictional objection and, after obtaining a jurisdictional ruling from the tribunal as a preliminary question, to apply to the Singapore courts to challenge jurisdiction.

A party may apply to the Singapore courts to challenge either positive or negative jurisdictional rulings by the tribunal. If the tribunal rules that it has jurisdiction as a preliminary question, or on a plea at any stage of the arbitral proceedings that it has no jurisdiction, any party may apply to the High Court within 30 days of receiving notice of the jurisdictional ruling to challenge the same (Section 21(9) of the Arbitration Act; Section 10(3) of the International Arbitration Act; Article 16(3) of the UNCITRAL Model Law).

However, a jurisdictional ruling can be challenged only if it does not deal with the merits of the case (AQZ v ARA [2015] 2 SLR 972). If the jurisdictional ruling also deals with the merits of the case and is an award within the meaning of the International Arbitration Act, recourse may then be had only to Article 34 of the Model Law and the provisions therein in relation to the setting aside of arbitral awards.

In reviewing the tribunal’s jurisdictional rulings, the Singapore courts apply a de novo standard of review (PT First Media TBK v Astro Nusantara International BV [2014] 1 SLR 372; Sanum Investments Ltd v Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic [2016] 5 SLR 536).

Even if a party does not apply to the Singapore courts to challenge a jurisdictional ruling pursuant to and within the timeframe stipulated under Article 16(3) of the Model Law and/or Section 10(3) of the International Arbitration Act, this does not preclude that party from subsequently relying on the tribunal’s lack of jurisdiction to resist enforcement of the arbitral award on the merits of the case (PT First Media TBK v Astro Nusantara International BV [2014] 1 SLR 372). That party is also not precluded from seeking to set aside the arbitral award, provided that it has not participated in the arbitral proceedings (apart from challenging the tribunal’s jurisdiction), and has not otherwise contributed to any wastage of costs or the incurring of any additional costs that could have prevented by the filing of a challenge under Article 16(3) of the Model Law (Rakna Arakshaka Lanka Ltd v Avant Garde Maritime Services (Pte) Ltd [2019] 2 SLR 131).

For more information about this answer please contact: Alvin Yeo and Koh Swee Yen from WongPartnership LLP