- Ontario court rules leave needed to file new evidence in challenge to arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction (Russia v Luxtona)
- What are the practical implications of the judgment?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Arbitration analysis: George Karayannides, a partner at Clyde & Co Canada LLP, examines a decision of Ontario's Superior Court of Justice that fresh evidence in an application to set aside an arbitral tribunal’s award on jurisdiction under Articles 16 and 34 of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration could not be introduced as of right. The court accordingly held that as permission was required to file fresh evidence but the applicant (Russia) had not satisfied the test for obtaining it, the evidence was not admissible in its challenge to the decision of a tribunal seated in Toronto that it had jurisdiction to hear the respondent company’s claims that the applicant had violated certain provisions of the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT).
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial