Jurisdiction challenge in investment arbitration dismissed under AA 1996, s 67 (Kyrgyz Republic v Stans Energy and anr)

Table of contents

• Original news
• What are the practical implications of this judgment?
• What was this case about?
• What was the basis of the challenge?
• What did the court decide?
• Case details

Article summary

Arbitration analysis: Simon Bryan QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge in the Commercial Court, has dismissed an application under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996), by which the Kyrgyz Republic sought to challenge an arbitral tribunal’s decision on its own jurisdiction in an arbitration under the 1976 UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. The parties had chosen London as the seat of the arbitration, hence the re-hearing by the Commercial Court of an issue which turned on the interpretation of the Kyrgyz Investment Law of 2003 and which required analysis of differing versions of the relevant provisions in Kyrgyz, Russian and English. The judge found that the state’s interpretation was too narrow and that all disputes arising between the state and a foreign investor during the process of implementation of its investment were covered.