Introduction Korea grew into an emerging arbitration hub in Northeast Asia over the last 20 years and has a long-standing reputation as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction. The Korean Arbitration Act (KAA) is the legislative framework governing arbitration in Korea. It was enacted in 1966, fully amended in 1999 to incorporate the UNCITRAL Model Law 1985, partially amended to adopt the changes and developments made in the UNCITRAL Model Law 2006, and partially amended in 2020 to incorporate changes made in the Arbitration Industry Promotion Act. Being one of the first Asian countries to adopt the UNCITRAL Model law on International Commercial Arbitration, Korea has implemented a legal framework that makes it a reliable place for arbitration. Korean courts are widely considered to be arbitration friendly, holding up arbitration agreements between the parties and take a reserved position in their intervention in arbitral proceedings. Furthermore, the grounds for setting aside an award or refusing the enforcement of an award are construed in a very narrow fashion. Accordingly, Korean courts

The choice of arbitration as the mechanism for dispute resolution has continued to enjoy increasing widespread acceptance in Nigeria. However, parties to arbitration agreements often commence court action to challenge the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunals to decide on their case. Challenging arbitral jurisdiction Until 26 May 2023, the primary law governing arbitration in Nigeria was the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1988, Cap A18, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, Vol. 2010 (‘ACA’), which was predominantly modeled on the UNCITRAL Model Law with some variations. The ACA expressly recognised the sanctity of an arbitration agreement (See section 2 of the ACA). Arbitration agreements were stated to be generally irrevocable. The ACA has now been repealed and replaced by the new Arbitration and Mediation Act of 2023 (‘AMA’). The general irrevocability of arbitration agreements is maintained in the AMA. Section 3 of the AMA provides that: ‘Subject to section 5(1) of this Act, and unless

Arbitration in the UAE has developed significantly in the recent years and continues to be a popular dispute resolution mechanism which is reflected in the UAE courts’ deference towards arbitration agreements. As detailed below, the UAE onshore courts permit parties to raise jurisdictional challenges in order to preserve parties’ agreement to arbitrate their disputes and will dismiss or stay proceedings where the requirements for these objections are satisfied. Other means of challenging jurisdiction are limited in the UAE onshore courts, since, unlike the DIFC and ADGM courts, the onshore courts neither grant anti-suit injunctions nor automatically enforce anti-suit injunctions issued by foreign courts. On 3 May 2018 the UAE passed the Federal Law No 6 of 2018 on Arbitration and was amended by virtue of Federal Decree-Law No. 15 of 2023 dated 04/09/2023 (the ‘UAE Arbitration Law’). which applies to all pending UAE-seated arbitrations (excluding arbitrations seated in the DIFC and the Abu Dhabi Global

This Practice Note considers the following issues: • stay of court proceedings in favour of arbitration • granting anti-suit injunctions by the Australian courts, and • challenging the tribunal's determination on jurisdiction Note that international arbitration in Australia is governed by the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) (IAA). The IAA implements the UNCITRAL Model Law (the Model Law), which is attached at Schedule 2 to the IAA. Some provisions of the Model Law are modified by the IAA. The IAA also implements the New York Convention which is attached at Schedule 1 to the IAA. Note: the Australian and other international judgments referred to in this Practice Note are not reported by LexisNexis® UK. Stay of court proceedings by the Australian courts The Australian courts have the power to stay court proceedings in favour of arbitration under: • section 7 of the IAA • Article 8 of the Model Law, and • its inherent jurisdiction (Vantage Holdings v JHC Developments Group [2011] QSC 155) The inherent

Note: the Swiss cases referred to below are not reported by LexisNexis®. Introduction Swiss domestic and Swiss international arbitration Swiss law distinguishes domestic and international ‘Swiss’ arbitration. The first is codified in Part 3 of the Swiss Code of Civil Procedure of 19 December 2008 (the ‘Swiss CCP’; the latest minor amendments to Part 3 entered into force on 1 January 2025), the second in Chapter 12 of the Swiss Private International Law Act of 18 December 1987 (the ‘PILA’; reformed in 2021). Both codifications regulate by and large the same issues as the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration of 1985, with amendments of 2006 (the ‘Model Law’), while not being structured according to the Model Law and thus remaining independent and unique versions of an arbitration law. Swiss arbitration law only applies to arbitrations seated in Switzerland. This requires rules on how to determine the seat. Accordingly, Article 176(3) PILA clarifies, seeking to cover every conceivable scenario: ‘The seat of the arbitration shall be determined by the parties

For an introduction to arbitration in Qatar, see Practice Note: Arbitration in Qatar—an introduction. Challenging arbitral tribunal jurisdiction in Qatar—overview There is little jurisprudence available on the issue of challenging an arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction in Qatar. This Practice Note, therefore, focuses on the (limited) available legislative aspects and anecdotal evidence concerning this topic. Jurisdictional challenges focus on arbitrators’ jurisdiction and are typical examples of disputes arising from an agreement to arbitrate. The very nature of arbitration—being an alternative dispute resolution forum, as opposed to the domestic courts with inherent jurisdiction over disputes in their own country—creates an interesting question: do arbitral tribunals have the power to rule on their own jurisdiction or should such challenges be decided by the domestic courts? In response to this question, international arbitration has adopted the doctrine of Kompetenz-kompetenz—empowering arbitral tribunals to rule on their own jurisdiction, in addition to the doctrine of separability of the arbitration agreement. Jurisdictional

The Sultanate of Oman (‘Oman’) has made significant headway in recent years with the introduction of the Oman Commercial Arbitration Centre (‘OAC’) in 2018 (established under Royal Decree No. 26 of 2018) and the issuance of its Arbitration Rules in 2020 (OAC Decision No. 8 of 2020). For arbitrations seated in Oman, the Oman Arbitration Act (Royal Decree No. 47 of 1997, as amended), which came into force on 28 June 1997 and was amended in 2007, acts as the lex arbitri. The Oman Arbitration Act is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law. The Oman Arbitration Act is supplemented by the Civil Procedure Law (Royal Decree No. 29 of 2002) and Oman’s adoption of the New York Convention (Royal Decree No. 36 of 1998). Article 22 of the Oman Arbitration Act prescribes the arbitral tribunal with the power to rule on challenges to its jurisdiction, otherwise known in some jurisdictions as Kompetenz-Kompetenz. Unlike many jurisdictions, the Oman Arbitration Act and Civil Procedure Law do not stipulate specific provisions relating to anti-suit injunctions

Arbitral tribunals may decide on their own jurisdiction to rule on a matter brought before them (the principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz) under sections 817 and 819-ter of the Italian Civil Procedural Code (CPC). Under Italian law, there is, however, no provision that enables the granting of anti-suit injunctions. Arbitrable disputes under Italian law CPC, s 806 provides that parties may refer any disputes to be heard by an arbitration tribunal except: • disputes involving inalienable rights • disputes explicitly excluded by the law The CPC also excludes the referral of employment matters to arbitration, except when the arbitration is: • established by the law • provided in the contract, or • provided by an appropriate collective employment contract Challenging the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal under Italian law Pursuant to CPC, s 817, para 1, arbitrators have the exclusive competence to ascertain whether they have jurisdiction to rule on the dispute before them under an arbitration agreement. The Italian legislative system fully recognises that the Kompetenz-Kompetenz

Generally speaking, jurisdiction in arbitration refers to the authority of an arbitral tribunal to make a decision that affects the merits of a case, see: Jurisdiction and admissibility in dispute resolution clauses. Thus, the jurisdiction is a necessary condition for an arbitral tribunal to decide on a case. General principles of arbitral tribunal jurisdiction under Macau Arbitration Law Jurisdiction established by agreement—party autonomy In arbitration, the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction depends entirely on the consent of the parties. Parties' agreement(s) give arbitral tribunals authority to resolve disputes as well as define the scope of such authority. Though, an arbitral tribunal has no ‘inherent’ jurisdiction, it has power to determine it according to the general principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz. The principle of Kompetenz Kompetenz The arbitral tribunal has the power to determine its own jurisdiction, and to rule on any issues regarding the validity or existence of the arbitration agreement. Practically, all jurisdictions acknowledge this principle in their arbitration law. Macau is not an exception. In Macau, under the article 46 of Macau Arbitration Law, the

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note considers whether the provisions in CPR 11 apply when determining a challenge to the court’s jurisdiction in reliance on Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). Impact of UK’s departure from the EU Following exit day (ie 31 January 2020), the UK became a third state in respect of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). As a result of transitional provisions in the Withdrawal Agreement between the UK and the EU, the UK remained subject to Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) during the implementation period, which began on exit day and ended on IP completion day (ie 31 December 2020, at 11 pm). The position post IP completion day requires consideration of the specific provisions of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) that can be applied in respect of third states, as well as of the ongoing application of relevant transitional provisions. For detailed guidance on the extent to which the regulation will, following IP

This Practice Note covers considerations when appealing a jurisdictional challenge decision. It examines initial considerations when contemplating an appeal, the timing of an appeal application and potential cost implications. It also considers staying proceedings pending a jurisdictional appeal and filing the second acknowledgment of service where an appeal is pending (CPR 11(8)). For guidance on other aspects of challenging court jurisdiction, see Practice Notes: • Challenging court jurisdiction—general principles • Challenging court jurisdiction—application under CPR 11 (general considerations) • Challenging court jurisdiction—application under CPR 11 (timing and extensions of time) • Challenging court jurisdiction—has a party submitted to a jurisdiction? To challenge the court’s jurisdiction, an application is made under CPR 11. If the application to challenge the jurisdiction fails and the court declines to make a declaration, an appeal can be made. In such cases, an appeal will usually be brought by requesting permission to appeal. For general guidance, see Practice Note: Permission to appeal—the application. Initial considerations when contemplating an appeal Whether an appeal is appropriate will depend on the specific circumstances of

When a claimant commences proceedings in the courts of England and Wales (English courts), a defendant may seek to challenge the English court’s jurisdiction by making an application under CPR 11. This Practice Note sets out considerations when drafting evidence either for the defendant in support of it’s application to challenge the court’s jurisdiction or for the claimant when opposing such application. The rules for disputing the court’s jurisdiction are set out in CPR 11. For associated guidance, see Practice Notes: • Challenging court jurisdiction—application under CPR 11 (general considerations) • Challenging court jurisdiction—application under CPR 11 (timing and extensions of time) For precedent witness statements, see Precedents: • defendant—Witness statement in support of an application to challenge English court jurisdiction • claimant—Witness statement opposing an application to challenge English court jurisdiction When evidence is to be provided CPR 11(4) states that the application must be made within 14 days after filing an acknowledgment of service and be supported by evidence. An issue arose in El Haddad v Al Rostamani